|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2017 04:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson? Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy. If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha. well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that: "One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. " it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you. I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset. the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source?
I can see what you're doing here. I don't honestly feel like I'm being irrational, and I do think this point fits in well with the previous discussion.
Having just won a lawsuit against one media organization for labelling him a terrorist, Nawaz is currently involved in a suit against the SPLC for categorizing him as a right wing extremist. Could it be that because he is critical of Islam, people are willing to believe the word of this guy http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-full-tape-tommy-robinson-10686928 if it discredits him?
The same people taking the word of right wing thug over that of a muslim reformer claim to be the ones on the left!
The world is upside down to me right now.
|
On December 10 2017 03:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 03:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east. Because on that list are: a) anti-muslim extremists b) normal people calling for support for liberal muslim movements in the middle east. The problem is, there is this idea now that we must protect muslims at home from any kind of questioning based on their faith. I can see why this is a good idea, its a very current issue and muslims should be free from discrimination just the same as everyone else. I can even see why we should be more active in protecting muslims domestically, they are obviously the target of an awful lot of hatred, most of it racist. The problem is when you have someone like Maajid Nawaz appearing on that list. He is a radio talk show host on a mainstream radio station in the UK who heads up the Quilliam foundation. He is actively promoting reform in islam because of the right wing political nature of islam in the middle east. This was a step too far for the SPLC (the biggest human rights law group in the US) so they designated him an extremist. This is an extreme version of something that typically happens in these discussions. If you talk about the treatment of women in the middle east you should be instantly judged a feminist, not a racist. and what do you say to the SPLC's listed objections regarding him? it sounds more like you for some reason like him, so you have trouble having a bad opinion of him, and therefore the "other" side is wrong, rather than considering that you might be. you didn't attack the articles ACTUAL listed objections to Nawaz (which I just read), you attacked a strawman description of them (or a description you somehow decided was correct from entirely elsewhere, which is hence unsourced relative to us, who only read what you've linked), which means you weren't lookin very carefully at the underlyin article in the first place. go reread the actual objections they have to him and address them. rather than addressing somethin entirely separate. I have read it. None of their objections to him are anything like valid in slightest bit. His foundation has expressed that sometimes when people who aren't guilty of crimes yet are spied on, it could be justified. Nawaz tweeted a picture of Muhammad Nawaz said "academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists." (this is a cast iron fact, just look at the debacle over extremist muslim schools in the UK, its a real thing, which had massive consequences). I don't get why any of these 'criticisms' amount to him being a right wing islamophobic extremist. They all point to the same thing I was saying. He is calling for a reform of the most right wing, brutal versions of islam, and his is being labelled an islamophobe and an extremist for it. On the left/right spectrum I'm mostly very left leaning, although I don't conform to the usual left wing stuff very much, I voted for Corbyn in the UK (probably one of the most leftwing candidates in Europe recently). I am a socialist through and through.
ok, now I have to say this, and I know it can be very upsetting to have your identity called into question, but it's important here.
You may no tbe as left leaning as you think you are, you may in fact be right-leaning. I've talked to a fair number of people for a long time on this forum; and it's usually fairly clear where on various spectra people are. You do not seem like a far-left person at all. You don't seem that left in general. But you're definitely not far right either.
people's feelings of identity matter a great deal; one can become so attached to that feeling that one persists in claiming the label even if it really doesn't fit at all. it's important to understand accept who you actually are.
I'd recommend trying a few things to see where you stand:
we could put a poll in thread, askin where the thread users think you are. the people in the thread have seen a fair bit of you, and may have a good sense on the topic. the forum is in general left-leaning, so (iirc the way these things work) where you actually are is a bit to the right of where the forum poll average would say you are. I have a design for the poll and I could put up quite quickly.
you could also try some of the various online quizzes and see how left/right they say you are.
|
On December 10 2017 04:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 04:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson? Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy. If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha. well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that: "One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. " it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you. I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset. the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source? I can see what you're doing here. I don't honestly feel like I'm being irrational, and I do think this point fits in well with the previous discussion. Having just won a lawsuit against one media organization for labelling him a terrorist, Nawaz is currently involved in a suit against the SPLC for categorizing him as a right wing extremist. Could it be that because he is critical of Islam, people are willing to believe the word of this guy http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-full-tape-tommy-robinson-10686928 if it discredits him? The same people taking the word of right wing thug over that of a muslim reformer claim to be the ones on the left! The world is upside down to me right now.
I don't honestly believe that you think "relying on Robinson's word" is a good characterization of the answers you've been given here, so I don't know how to answer.
On a larger point about Nawaz, I think it's pretty clear that he's talking to the west about islam more than he is talking to islam about reform. His book Radical is clearly designed for a western audience, he coined the term "regressive left", his association with Sam Harris or Hirsi Ali points to the same conclusion. Quilliam being a fraud is cherry on top.
And on a much larger point about the conversation at large, what happens here is we are having a difference of opinion on the worth of one specific guy's input in the discourse. Certainly not something from which you can make some grand conclusion that the left goes against muslim reformists, as was more or less your initial claim.
|
On December 10 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 03:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east. Because on that list are: a) anti-muslim extremists b) normal people calling for support for liberal muslim movements in the middle east. The problem is, there is this idea now that we must protect muslims at home from any kind of questioning based on their faith. I can see why this is a good idea, its a very current issue and muslims should be free from discrimination just the same as everyone else. I can even see why we should be more active in protecting muslims domestically, they are obviously the target of an awful lot of hatred, most of it racist. The problem is when you have someone like Maajid Nawaz appearing on that list. He is a radio talk show host on a mainstream radio station in the UK who heads up the Quilliam foundation. He is actively promoting reform in islam because of the right wing political nature of islam in the middle east. This was a step too far for the SPLC (the biggest human rights law group in the US) so they designated him an extremist. This is an extreme version of something that typically happens in these discussions. If you talk about the treatment of women in the middle east you should be instantly judged a feminist, not a racist. and what do you say to the SPLC's listed objections regarding him? it sounds more like you for some reason like him, so you have trouble having a bad opinion of him, and therefore the "other" side is wrong, rather than considering that you might be. you didn't attack the articles ACTUAL listed objections to Nawaz (which I just read), you attacked a strawman description of them (or a description you somehow decided was correct from entirely elsewhere, which is hence unsourced relative to us, who only read what you've linked), which means you weren't lookin very carefully at the underlyin article in the first place. go reread the actual objections they have to him and address them. rather than addressing somethin entirely separate. I have read it. None of their objections to him are anything like valid in slightest bit. His foundation has expressed that sometimes when people who aren't guilty of crimes yet are spied on, it could be justified. Nawaz tweeted a picture of Muhammad Nawaz said "academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists." (this is a cast iron fact, just look at the debacle over extremist muslim schools in the UK, its a real thing, which had massive consequences). I don't get why any of these 'criticisms' amount to him being a right wing islamophobic extremist. They all point to the same thing I was saying. He is calling for a reform of the most right wing, brutal versions of islam, and his is being labelled an islamophobe and an extremist for it. On the left/right spectrum I'm mostly very left leaning, although I don't conform to the usual left wing stuff very much, I voted for Corbyn in the UK (probably one of the most leftwing candidates in Europe recently). I am a socialist through and through. ok, now I have to say this, and I know it can be very upsetting to have your identity called into question, but it's important here. You may no tbe as left leaning as you think you are, you may in fact be right-leaning. I've talked to a fair number of people for a long time on this forum; and it's usually fairly clear where on various spectra people are. You do not seem like a far-left person at all. You don't seem that left in general. But you're definitely not far right either.
He looks to be economically leftwing but socially not super liberal on some topics. That's not exactly uncommon, and in terms of the UK or Europe that would definitely make him leftwing.
|
No offense zlefin but that's a touch patronizing 
I know my political opinions fairly well although there's stuff I'm still working out.
I have voted left my whole life, and it has only gotten further to the left as I have got older. The stuff I bring up on this forum is mostly stuff that I am still figuring out, stuff that I find difficult.
The off topic discussion we were having about Nawaz is one of these issues. The SPLC, as you said, does good work, in fact they've done alot of great things, but as was my original point, the issue of Islam is something where I would call their work into question. They spend more time and money protecting extremists than they do supporting moderates when it comes to Islam and the middle east. I'm not saying they have sinister motives, I don't believe they do, but I think the issue is confused and convoluted to the point where if it is taken one issue at a time (ie protecting the rights of extremists - something which is a worthy way to spend resources) the bigger picture can be lost.
|
On December 10 2017 04:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 04:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson? Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy. If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha. well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that: "One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. " it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you. I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset. the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source? I can see what you're doing here. I don't honestly feel like I'm being irrational, and I do think this point fits in well with the previous discussion. Having just won a lawsuit against one media organization for labelling him a terrorist, Nawaz is currently involved in a suit against the SPLC for categorizing him as a right wing extremist. Could it be that because he is critical of Islam, people are willing to believe the word of this guy http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-full-tape-tommy-robinson-10686928 if it discredits him? The same people taking the word of right wing thug over that of a muslim reformer claim to be the ones on the left! The world is upside down to me right now.
well, let's see if Nawaz wins that lawsuit. there's a VERY large difference between "terrorist" and "right wing extremist"
the SPLC may be overzealous in its application of the label, and the others on that list definitely had more clearcut cases than the one against Nawaz, but they've done enough reliably good work over a lon gperiod of time that classifying them as badly as you did (a godwin invocation!) is simply unwarranted.
just because you don' feel like you're being irrational doesn't mean you aren't. It is well known and well documented that people often have inaccurate perceptions of themselves.
How does a sick mind recognize its own sickness? it's a classic question in philosophy/medicine/something.
Things often make sense in one's own mind, even for people with such severe conditions as schizophrenia, so just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it actually makes sense.
to make another extreme example: 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers believe they're being rational and sensible and following the facts.
Trump doesn't believe he's a narcissist (I assume at least, not sure we have a point blank quote from him on it).
sometimes the only way to recognize things is via others responses and explanations.
on takin the word of: from our PoV, Nawaz is NOT a muslim reformer, he's a right-win gthug, therefore it'd be takin the word of one right-win gthug, over another right-wing. thug. and reall when given those two choices, that's a pretty close and reasonable call, right? it's not odd at all.
if the world seems upside down, that may be because you're workin goff of faulty premises. sometimes it takes awhile to figure things out, to find the explanation where everything fits and makes sense.
|
|
|
On December 10 2017 02:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 02:34 kollin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its so fucking easy to get sucked into the conservative area of Youtube (Rubin, Peterson, Crowder etc.).
Why isn't there a leftist version? I've seen some contrapoints videos that are really good, but can anyone recommend any other channels doing good leftist stuff?
Is it a matter of funding why there is such a difference in quality and interesting content, or am I just missing it all?
I think the left has a much more credible and established intellectual base that doesn't need to use YouTube. I don't agree. I mean if it was true that the left doesn't need to use Youtube there wouldn't be such a surge in right wing views. The right has found a way to disguise their opinions as liberalism ('classic' liberals), while the left is getting a reputation as shrieking children. To me, the left's intellectual base has become eroded to the point where it needs some fresh thought. The epistemology of the left (ie all knowledge is socially constructed) is only taken as fact by those on the left and they often don't seem to realize that it doesn't really chime with how most people (let's say most white people) experience reality. It seems to me that although the left likes to think that they have a more credible intellectual base, they are becoming easier and easier to ridicule, and its playing into the hands of the Rubin/Shapiro crowd. PS thanks for the suggestions everyone I guess I've got alot of Youtube to watch now :D edit: it could be that I am cartoonishly exaggerating the social constructionist views of the left but I don't think so. Its not something that often gets discussed across political lines so its hard to determine the exact philosophy behind the politics. On December 10 2017 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. you can just ask here; what issue do you want sorted out? assuming i'm sufficiently leftist for ya (or you provide a set of leftist axioms to work with) This is answered in the post above, but there are a few others I guess. You often hear things like (and this is a quote, but I can't remember who from) "Whiteness is a social construct" This stuff usually takes the form of an assertion, rather than a position that's backed up by any evidence. Social constructivism as a theory of knowledge is absolutely horrible, its full of logical errors and holes and is usually applied wrongly by those who use it. Yet in social justice circles, it serves pretty much as the basis for every position on race, gender and just about everything else. The issue here I would want sorting out would be WHY should I believe in this radical, counter-intuitive epistemology when there is absolutely no evidence for it? It seems like the foundation is there simply to serve the specific political views, rather than because it is the most sensible foundation. On December 10 2017 03:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:17 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:59 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. Just as the right is so eager to discuss problems wit their own ideology? There is an opposite side for that. Also, I am curious to which holes you are talking about, Europe is doing fine, and even the right over here is leftist by US standards regarding many issues. TBH Islam is probably the most confounding issue for the left. Much of the Middle East conforms to an extremely right wing version of Islam, and yet those on the left wing in Europe act as though they have a duty to protect that right wing system. If you go a little behind the talking point that the left is protecting the rightwing system, you will see that it makes no sense. First because you're not going to be able to show evidence of the left protecting Middle Eastern radical regimes, and second because you will see the opposite: attempts to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, for example, because they're not quite the good guys, will always come from the left and be denied by the right. What happens is that those commentators will use the defense of refugees and of individuals that exists on the left and use how close those two ideas are in the minds of most people to give you the impression that the left defends the saudi regime. It doesn't. I was talking in a more general sense, not inferring that the left is literally propping up right wing regimes in the middle east. The biggest question I have is this: Why does it make more sense to campaign for women's rights at home than it does to campaign for them in the middle east, where women are often so badly treated that they are victims of human rights violations every single day? The other question would be as to why people who point this out end up ostracized by the left and often end up put in the category of 'just another islamophobe'. It doesn't make "more sense", both just make sense. Typically it's going to be easier for you to fix the problems that are closest to you, and typically you'll hear more about attempts to fix the problems that are close to you. That there are bigger problems elsewhere is not a reason not to do stuff about the problems that are here, which is in most cases the fallacious argument that the people who get called out in those situations are trying to make. It isn't just not doing anything about problems elsewhere that I have issue with. Its the fact that when people DO try and protect women abroad by calling for reforms in conservative muslim circles, they are labelled as islamophobes and right wing extremists. The left (by proxy in this case of the SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists ) is actively acting against the interests of women in the middle east.
I was also kind of wondering how socially left people felt when their views on social constructionism or conservative Muslim theology/political philosophy became heterodox. Very illuminating.
EDIT: I also don't know how many skeptics on the left of modern orthodoxy would make long YouTube videos when they themselves would get labelled Islamophobes or unknowledgeable on oppression. Those tend to silence debate.
|
On December 10 2017 04:44 Jockmcplop wrote:No offense zlefin but that's a touch patronizing I know my political opinions fairly well although there's stuff I'm still working out. I have voted left my whole life, and it has only gotten further to the left as I have got older. The stuff I bring up on this forum is mostly stuff that I am still figuring out, stuff that I find difficult. The off topic discussion we were having about Nawaz is one of these issues. The SPLC, as you said, does good work, in fact they've done alot of great things, but as was my original point, the issue of Islam is something where I would call their work into question. They spend more time and money protecting extremists than they do supporting moderates when it comes to Islam and the middle east. I'm not saying they have sinister motives, I don't believe they do, but I think the issue is confused and convoluted to the point where if it is taken one issue at a time (ie protecting the rights of extremists - something which is a worthy way to spend resources) the bigger picture can be lost.
no offense taken.
having voted left doesn't mean you actually are left though; voting is much more about identity groupings than about actual political beliefs (this is well documented in the literature on the topic)
as the American South switched from Democrat to Republican; many older Dems (from back when the Dems were really racist) continued voting Dem right up until they died, even if the party platform didn' tmatch their beliefs as much as the local republicans did, they were Dems, so they voted Dem.
it's also important to separate left/right economically, from left/right on social issues; the two can be quite separate. I'm only focusing on the social issues one, not the economic issues one, or some sort of aggregate total.
how do you know how spread out the SPLC's expenditures are on extremsists vs moderates? have you read their actual financials in such detail? maybe they do a lot to support moderates and you're simply unaware of it? an awful lot happens in the world, especially with larger organizations.
on Nawaz, you'd need to present more evidence of him bein gsome sort of actual reformer, cuz nothing you've presented or that I've seen makes him seem like an actual reformer working from within Islam. his target audience seems to be non-Islamic westerners (regardless of his motives)
|
no, i'm no tfalling into that trap at all.
you defensively and improperly accusing gme of that is you trying to avoid the uncomfortable truth that was presented.
I listed those groups because it was an extreme example that clearly showcased the underlying point:
some people believe they are being rational, but they are not. a mind sometimes cannot recognize its own problems. That remains entirely true and correct, and the cases I cited helped demonstrate that.
I know you are not at their level of extremeness, but that was not the point at all.
as to Nawaz being a right-wing thug, I cite the evidence you already presented: the SPLC's classification of him. (admittedly not a thug, just right-wing extremist). The SPLC's classification alone is certainly enough to qualify as a single piece of evidence.
you might no tlike it, and may highly disagree with it, but it's certainly a reasonable piece of evidence.
|
On December 10 2017 05:01 zlefin wrote:no, i'm no tfalling into that trap at all. you defensively and improperly accusing gme of that is you trying to avoid the uncomfortable truth that was presented. I listed those groups because it was an extreme example that clearly showcased the underlying point: some people believe they are being rational, but they are not. a mind sometimes cannot recognize its own problems. That remains entirely true and correct, and the cases I cited helped demonstrate that. I know you are not at their level of extremeness, but that was not the point at all. as to Nawaz being a right-wing thug, I cite the evidence you already presented: the SPLC's classification of him. (admittedly not a thug, just right-wing extremist). The SPLC's classification alone is certainly enough to qualify as a single piece of evidence. you might no tlike it, and may highly disagree with it, but it's certainly a reasonable piece of evidence.
It isn't though, because if you read the article, which i know you have, you wouldn't find any justification in it for classifying him as right wing. You skipped this point though. Can you refer me to the specific justification in that article for calling him right wing?
If its the fact that he posted a picture of the prophet on twitter then it absolutely proves my point about the left having a blind spot for conservative Islam.
In terms of his political party, it would be like me accusing Bernie Sanders of being right wing because of his views on war. To be a Lib Dem candidate in the UK you have to be center left. That's how it is. The SPLC's error doesn't change that.
|
On December 10 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 02:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:34 kollin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its so fucking easy to get sucked into the conservative area of Youtube (Rubin, Peterson, Crowder etc.).
Why isn't there a leftist version? I've seen some contrapoints videos that are really good, but can anyone recommend any other channels doing good leftist stuff?
Is it a matter of funding why there is such a difference in quality and interesting content, or am I just missing it all?
I think the left has a much more credible and established intellectual base that doesn't need to use YouTube. I don't agree. I mean if it was true that the left doesn't need to use Youtube there wouldn't be such a surge in right wing views. The right has found a way to disguise their opinions as liberalism ('classic' liberals), while the left is getting a reputation as shrieking children. To me, the left's intellectual base has become eroded to the point where it needs some fresh thought. The epistemology of the left (ie all knowledge is socially constructed) is only taken as fact by those on the left and they often don't seem to realize that it doesn't really chime with how most people (let's say most white people) experience reality. It seems to me that although the left likes to think that they have a more credible intellectual base, they are becoming easier and easier to ridicule, and its playing into the hands of the Rubin/Shapiro crowd. PS thanks for the suggestions everyone I guess I've got alot of Youtube to watch now :D edit: it could be that I am cartoonishly exaggerating the social constructionist views of the left but I don't think so. Its not something that often gets discussed across political lines so its hard to determine the exact philosophy behind the politics. Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. you can just ask here; what issue do you want sorted out? assuming i'm sufficiently leftist for ya (or you provide a set of leftist axioms to work with) This is answered in the post above, but there are a few others I guess. You often hear things like (and this is a quote, but I can't remember who from) "Whiteness is a social construct" This stuff usually takes the form of an assertion, rather than a position that's backed up by any evidence. Social constructivism as a theory of knowledge is absolutely horrible, its full of logical errors and holes and is usually applied wrongly by those who use it. Yet in social justice circles, it serves pretty much as the basis for every position on race, gender and just about everything else. The issue here I would want sorting out would be WHY should I believe in this radical, counter-intuitive epistemology when there is absolutely no evidence for it? It seems like the foundation is there simply to serve the specific political views, rather than because it is the most sensible foundation. Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:17 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:59 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. Just as the right is so eager to discuss problems wit their own ideology? There is an opposite side for that. Also, I am curious to which holes you are talking about, Europe is doing fine, and even the right over here is leftist by US standards regarding many issues. TBH Islam is probably the most confounding issue for the left. Much of the Middle East conforms to an extremely right wing version of Islam, and yet those on the left wing in Europe act as though they have a duty to protect that right wing system. If you go a little behind the talking point that the left is protecting the rightwing system, you will see that it makes no sense. First because you're not going to be able to show evidence of the left protecting Middle Eastern radical regimes, and second because you will see the opposite: attempts to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, for example, because they're not quite the good guys, will always come from the left and be denied by the right. What happens is that those commentators will use the defense of refugees and of individuals that exists on the left and use how close those two ideas are in the minds of most people to give you the impression that the left defends the saudi regime. It doesn't. I was talking in a more general sense, not inferring that the left is literally propping up right wing regimes in the middle east. The biggest question I have is this: Why does it make more sense to campaign for women's rights at home than it does to campaign for them in the middle east, where women are often so badly treated that they are victims of human rights violations every single day? The other question would be as to why people who point this out end up ostracized by the left and often end up put in the category of 'just another islamophobe'. It doesn't make "more sense", both just make sense. Typically it's going to be easier for you to fix the problems that are closest to you, and typically you'll hear more about attempts to fix the problems that are close to you. That there are bigger problems elsewhere is not a reason not to do stuff about the problems that are here, which is in most cases the fallacious argument that the people who get called out in those situations are trying to make. It isn't just not doing anything about problems elsewhere that I have issue with. Its the fact that when people DO try and protect women abroad by calling for reforms in conservative muslim circles, they are labelled as islamophobes and right wing extremists. The left (by proxy in this case of the SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists ) is actively acting against the interests of women in the middle east. I was also kind of wondering how socially left people felt when their views on social constructionism or conservative Muslim theology/political philosophy became heterodox. Very illuminating. EDIT: I also don't know how many skeptics on the left of modern orthodoxy would make long YouTube videos when they themselves would get labelled Islamophobes or unknowledgeable on oppression. Those tend to silence debate.
Yeah this is another way in which the left tends to eat itself. Many of my internet friends tend to hold every single issue in such esteem that any deviation from the orthodoxy gets you labelled (check out zlefin in this very thread haha) and told you are not welcome on the left any more.
Luckily most people I speak to outside of the confines of the internet are free of this terrible addiction to conformity.
|
Have you ever noticed how you encounter much more people who are outraged that they can't say what they want to the left and then tell that to you, expecting your agreement, than you meet those famous leftist people actually enforcing that terrible conformity that you keep hearing about?
|
If anything the left needs more conformity. In every country on the planet conservatives and right-wingers manage to march to the voting booths like the good soldiers that they are, while the left is notoriously split on every little issue. I really don't know in what reality there is any kind of conformity on the left. There isn't even any conformity on the far-left lol, you get 20 communists in a room and you end up with 25 communist parties
|
On December 10 2017 05:13 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2017 02:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:34 kollin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its so fucking easy to get sucked into the conservative area of Youtube (Rubin, Peterson, Crowder etc.).
Why isn't there a leftist version? I've seen some contrapoints videos that are really good, but can anyone recommend any other channels doing good leftist stuff?
Is it a matter of funding why there is such a difference in quality and interesting content, or am I just missing it all?
I think the left has a much more credible and established intellectual base that doesn't need to use YouTube. I don't agree. I mean if it was true that the left doesn't need to use Youtube there wouldn't be such a surge in right wing views. The right has found a way to disguise their opinions as liberalism ('classic' liberals), while the left is getting a reputation as shrieking children. To me, the left's intellectual base has become eroded to the point where it needs some fresh thought. The epistemology of the left (ie all knowledge is socially constructed) is only taken as fact by those on the left and they often don't seem to realize that it doesn't really chime with how most people (let's say most white people) experience reality. It seems to me that although the left likes to think that they have a more credible intellectual base, they are becoming easier and easier to ridicule, and its playing into the hands of the Rubin/Shapiro crowd. PS thanks for the suggestions everyone I guess I've got alot of Youtube to watch now :D edit: it could be that I am cartoonishly exaggerating the social constructionist views of the left but I don't think so. Its not something that often gets discussed across political lines so its hard to determine the exact philosophy behind the politics. On December 10 2017 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. you can just ask here; what issue do you want sorted out? assuming i'm sufficiently leftist for ya (or you provide a set of leftist axioms to work with) This is answered in the post above, but there are a few others I guess. You often hear things like (and this is a quote, but I can't remember who from) "Whiteness is a social construct" This stuff usually takes the form of an assertion, rather than a position that's backed up by any evidence. Social constructivism as a theory of knowledge is absolutely horrible, its full of logical errors and holes and is usually applied wrongly by those who use it. Yet in social justice circles, it serves pretty much as the basis for every position on race, gender and just about everything else. The issue here I would want sorting out would be WHY should I believe in this radical, counter-intuitive epistemology when there is absolutely no evidence for it? It seems like the foundation is there simply to serve the specific political views, rather than because it is the most sensible foundation. On December 10 2017 03:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:17 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:59 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. Just as the right is so eager to discuss problems wit their own ideology? There is an opposite side for that. Also, I am curious to which holes you are talking about, Europe is doing fine, and even the right over here is leftist by US standards regarding many issues. TBH Islam is probably the most confounding issue for the left. Much of the Middle East conforms to an extremely right wing version of Islam, and yet those on the left wing in Europe act as though they have a duty to protect that right wing system. If you go a little behind the talking point that the left is protecting the rightwing system, you will see that it makes no sense. First because you're not going to be able to show evidence of the left protecting Middle Eastern radical regimes, and second because you will see the opposite: attempts to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, for example, because they're not quite the good guys, will always come from the left and be denied by the right. What happens is that those commentators will use the defense of refugees and of individuals that exists on the left and use how close those two ideas are in the minds of most people to give you the impression that the left defends the saudi regime. It doesn't. I was talking in a more general sense, not inferring that the left is literally propping up right wing regimes in the middle east. The biggest question I have is this: Why does it make more sense to campaign for women's rights at home than it does to campaign for them in the middle east, where women are often so badly treated that they are victims of human rights violations every single day? The other question would be as to why people who point this out end up ostracized by the left and often end up put in the category of 'just another islamophobe'. It doesn't make "more sense", both just make sense. Typically it's going to be easier for you to fix the problems that are closest to you, and typically you'll hear more about attempts to fix the problems that are close to you. That there are bigger problems elsewhere is not a reason not to do stuff about the problems that are here, which is in most cases the fallacious argument that the people who get called out in those situations are trying to make. It isn't just not doing anything about problems elsewhere that I have issue with. Its the fact that when people DO try and protect women abroad by calling for reforms in conservative muslim circles, they are labelled as islamophobes and right wing extremists. The left (by proxy in this case of the SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists ) is actively acting against the interests of women in the middle east. I was also kind of wondering how socially left people felt when their views on social constructionism or conservative Muslim theology/political philosophy became heterodox. Very illuminating. EDIT: I also don't know how many skeptics on the left of modern orthodoxy would make long YouTube videos when they themselves would get labelled Islamophobes or unknowledgeable on oppression. Those tend to silence debate. Yeah this is another way in which the left tends to eat itself. Many of my internet friends tend to hold every single issue in such esteem that any deviation from the orthodoxy gets you labelled (check out zlefin in this very thread haha) and told you are not welcome on the left any more. Luckily most people I speak to outside of the confines of the internet are free of this terrible addiction to conformity.
Is there an orthodoxy amongst the left?? Is there such a strangling chokehold of conformity? Zlefin's unnecessary condescension aside, the debate within the left over the importance of economic justice vs social justice is one that has been going on for 35ish years, and I just don't think it's the case that there has ever been a settled orthodoxy amongst the majority of those on the left (though I think both Labour and the Democrats have clearly landed on the side of social justice in the 90s due to feeling like they had lost the argument, and only now is economic justice returning to the agenda).
|
On December 10 2017 05:21 Nyxisto wrote:
If anything the left needs more conformity. In every country on the planet conservatives and right-wingers manage to march to the voting booths like the good soldiers that they are, while the left is notoriously split on every little issue. I really don't know in what reality there is any kind of conformity on the left. There isn't even any conformity on the far-left lol, you get 20 communists in a room and you end up with 25 communist parties
It isn't actual conformity in opinions that is the issue,it is expected conformity in issues. On the right they seem to have accepted that people have different opinions and can somehow get together over the issues they agree on.
Maybe kollin is correct and it just appears that way now because social justice appears to have been the only agenda for a while so economic leftists like myself are left out.
|
It isn't actual conformity in opinions that is the issue,it is expected conformity in issues. On the right they seem to have accepted that people have different opinions and can somehow get together over the issues they agree on
If you accept different opinions only under the condition that everybody turns out for the same candidate it's pretty easy to accept differing opinions, eh? One could even speculate that the right pays this lip service to ideological diversity only because it doesn't manifest itself anywhere in their political parties
Metaphysical diversity of sorts
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 10 2017 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:
Have you ever noticed how you encounter much more people who are outraged that they can't say what they want to the left and then tell that to you, expecting your agreement, than you meet those famous leftist people actually enforcing that terrible conformity that you keep hearing about?
Actually, no not really. The opposite, in fact.
Although if you separate "the left" from "liberals" then it becomes much less true.
|
On December 10 2017 05:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +It isn't actual conformity in opinions that is the issue,it is expected conformity in issues. On the right they seem to have accepted that people have different opinions and can somehow get together over the issues they agree on If you accept different opinions only under the condition that everybody turns out for the same candidate it's pretty easy to accept differing opinions, eh? One could even speculate that the right pays this lip service to ideological diversity only because it doesn't manifest itself anywhere in their political parties
I can agree with this. I'm not really speculating as to intention, more just the results we see.
Maybe there is more ideological diversity on the left, but it expresses itself in a nasty way (sometimes). Perhaps its the more academic nature of leftist theory, but its hard not to feel like an outsider on the left unless you just shut up and stick to issues that you know all your leftist friends will agree on.
|
On December 10 2017 05:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:
Have you ever noticed how you encounter much more people who are outraged that they can't say what they want to the left and then tell that to you, expecting your agreement, than you meet those famous leftist people actually enforcing that terrible conformity that you keep hearing about? Actually, no not really. The opposite, in fact.
Three people have talked to me about political correctness in my life. One I worked with 10 years ago, he was psychologically unstable and massively rightwing. One was a random guy in a train deciding to talk to me about welfare recipients and foreigners as if I was going to agree with him when I had a Bernie Sanders teeshirt on. The third time was at work this year, leftwing colleagues explaining to me that they voted against something that concerned muslims in Switzerland but were afraid to say that they had (apparently not afraid enough not to actually say it).
People who bring up the conformity of thought of the left, in my experience, invariably want you to agree that it's bad that other people are enforcing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
