If leftwingers like me are condemned as rightwing, then what’s left?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/mainstream-left-silencing-sympathetic-voices

By Tim Lott, The Guardian

Read the full article (the beginning) but here's the snippet I wish to discuss:

[snipped]


I believe more in free speech than I do in “safe spaces” in universities. I do not think people with unpleasant opinions should be prosecuted, or even denied a platform, unless they directly threaten to incite violence or lawbreaking. I do not think “political correctness” is a myth – although I would prefer the term groupthink – but that it is a system of thought that has a real impact on public policy and institutional behaviour.

I think of myself as English rather than British, and have some residual affection for my country – though for reasons of its humour, cultural imagination and common grassroots culture rather than its imperial past.

My stance on these issues makes some people in my “tribe” very angry. It is the anger of the pure believer towards the apostate. However, I can find echoes of my populist worldview in one strand of the left – that represented by the Spiked web magazine, which grew out of the ashes of Living Marxism and the Revolutionary Communist party, once known as the libertarian or anti-Stalinist left. Describing their philosophy as radical humanism, they poke and prod at the sacred cows of the left but from a socialist rather than a rightwing populist position. The fact that I enjoy Spiked – although I by no means agree with all of it – feels like dirty little secret. But that’s what the mainstream left specialises in: generating shame.

My stance makes some people in my tribe very angry. It is the anger of the pure believer towards the apostate
This shame comes from the phenomenon of what I call assumption creep – the assumption that if you believe one thing you probably believe another thing, which you are hiding. If you believe women behave differently in the real world from men, whether for cultural or biological reasons, you also (secretly) believe women are more suited for domestic life than careers.

That if you believe religion, including Islam, is the source of much conflict in the world you also (secretly) believe all Muslims are potential terrorists and you (secretly) dislike immigrants to boot. That if you have a particular attachment to your country, defined as England rather than Britain, you keep a St George’s flag and a knuckle-duster in the back of your drawer. These supposed secret assumptions are the primary source of censure from leftwing critics of the “paradoxical voice” – which is the term I use to describe the thinking of “non-pure” leftwing thinkers.

Assumption creep may be accurate in some cases. We all know about the “I’m not a racist, but … ” arguments. But more often than not, it simply isn’t true. To insist otherwise is lazy. It’s just a way of making sure people who have opinions contrary to your own stay safely in their boxes – the boxes marked “bad people”. To actually address the issues is thus avoided, because who needs to debate with a bad person? It’s enough just to condemn them.....[snipped]

"Assumption creep"
In a fucking nutshell!!

Disagree with some points on there

For one not all religious people view or follow their faith the same, being as Islam/Christianity etc have many denominations as well as interpretations and how much a person will literally believe something. So to say religions are a cause of wars, of which over 2,000 years is testament to that fact, does not mean then I for one and other believe "all" are potential killers, terrorists etc. That shows a complete lack of understanding religion and the religious people themselves, who will also have many political views which maybe born from the religion itself. So that view on that was silly, as again I am not against immigrants which is well known by many here.

His methodology to how people view maybe true to some people but I would say is far removed from the majority. He offered no reasoning to it but makes bold claims to say this is how people think. That sadly lacks any substance and is then just a point of view. he could of backed this up with empirical evidence for example.

His points on Free speech were good and back that, but that is about it really

I like the "assumption creep"

eddie wrote:I like the "assumption creep"

That I found poor again, on his reasoning that its simple not true when people say "I'm not racist, but" is actually genuinely true that people are racist who say that from my experience. As why would you need to say you are not racist, if you are not racist and then after this say but? The but part nullifies the former claim.

No. People say that as a defence due to PC madness

Assumption creed exists, and it is bad.
PC going too far happens, and it is bad.
Racism exists, and it is bad.

No one should pretend any of those don't exist just because they are 'more' opposed to one or the other.

eddie wrote:No. People say that as a defence due to PC madness

Only in a few instances, the majority tend to be racist

That is a fact Eddie

Assumption creep is something newly made up

PC does not go to far, people wrongly assign PC when its not PC

PC is

"the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

If something ends up claiming in the name of PC by marginalizing or discriminating a group of people it cannot be claimed to be PC can it?
That is the real issue is when people try to do things in the name of PC and get it utterly wrong, as it should never effect, discriminate or marginalize anyone.

Being racist is being racist
Being homophobic is being homophobic
Political correctness is political correctness
You never assign any of the above if it conflicts, that is just blatantly absurd

So Eilzel's points are also idiotic

How?

Not investigating crimes of a minority happens and is partly due to fears of being called racist. That is PC going too far.

People assume new atheists like Dawkins are Islamophobic and against all Muslims because he speaks against religion. That is assumption creep.

And racism causes harm and discrimination everyday and by far the worst of the three.

So not idiotic, fact. And don't just jump in with insults didge its boring.

Eilzel wrote:How?

Not investigating crimes of a minority happens and is partly due to fears of being called racist. That is PC going too far.

People assume new atheists like Dawkins are Islamophobic and against all Muslims because he speaks against religion. That is assumption creep.

And racism causes harm and discrimination everyday and by far the worst of the three.

So not idiotic, fact. And don't just jump in with insults didge its boring.

Now that is a made up bullshit assumption  creep, show me the definition of the concept?

Where did I say racism does not cause harm

People who generally go "I am not racist, but have black friends" are people using a euphemism that points to them being very much racist as its a defensive claim no non-racist ever claims to make. Do you see any of the non-racists here make such an assertion?
No because they are not racist and do not have to prove their stance because their reasons and beliefs show they are not

Where people make statements against Sam Harris, its not an assumption but a blatant lie, intended to deligitimise.
So how can something wrong be an assumption if its intended to deceive and lie?
Please explain that to me?

Your views were utterly idioticc and make utterly no sense

As to fears of not investigating a crime is no excuse and using PC is about as idiotic as it gets again. If people use an excuse for their failings, what does that say about people themselves for where they have failed others? That a fear of being laballed and wrongly accused is more of a concern that upholding the law, than the person is not fit for the job. If a fear denies people rightfully investigating then it is people that are wrong to cast such poor suspicions and claims onto people

Again what has that to do with PC that protects people from discrimination?

Nothing, its people themselves at fault from both sides

I mean seriously can people even see what they are trying to say here

Really, is now excuses for failings made by people what we do now. That their failings is something to be excused and not themselves doing wrong because they did not act when they should have? I find that utterly abhorrent that we would look to excuse people for failings, that they themselves had the choice to act or not act off on.

Would any here use an excuse for the mass murder of Jews in World war to and offer excuses for those involved in their extermination?
Would any stand up in court defending them for their crimes?

Seriously, is that what you are trying to reason to me Eilzel?
If we allow an excuse for where people have failed, then we are allowing people to get away from where they fundamentally were in the wrong where they had a choice over their actions. we all have choices and to downgrade and even excuse people for their mistakes based off a system which seeks to protect real discrimination, then we are excusing the failing they have done. Not perceived fear from doing their job because they might be wrongly cast as racist. If we allow fear to stop ourselves from doing our jobs, then we are not fit to catty out the roles of that job.
If you are in the right to investigate a suspicion of a crime by someone and someone excuses of racism, then the law should protect them from such a false accusation, if they are in the right.



End of story

Right I have heard enough bullshit to last me a lifetime on this thread

Night

I didn't excuse racism, I clearly said it exists. I think people who say 'I'm not racist but..' usually are racist. However, there are times when people are accused falsely. That is all.

Glad you finished your 4 post rant. Night.

Eilzel wrote:How?

Not investigating crimes of a minority happens and is partly due to fears of being called racist. That is PC going too far.

is it PC gone to Far? or Cowardice and incompetence of those that failed in their jobs and duty?



People assume new atheists like Dawkins are Islamophobic and against all Muslims because he speaks against religion. That is assumption creep.

Not dawkins as much as Sam Harris and he has directly stated his opposition to anything that is not EXACTLY what he preaches. Anyone with actual scientific understanding tears him apart instantly as he is a dumb ass.
Dawkins is often over quoted by moron’s like Sam as if he is some Messiah when Dawkins Openly admits to be less knowledgeable than the likes of Tyson or Krauss.


And racism causes harm and discrimination everyday and by far the worst of the three. true

So not idiotic, fact. And don't just jump in with insults didge its boring. true

So i would say PC is used as an excuse, but it is in no way a valid excuse and the attempt to use it highlights a greater issue with the intergity of the person attempting to excuse cowardice as something other than cowardice.

Eilzel wrote:Assumption creed exists, and it is bad.
PC going too far happens, and it is bad.
Racism exists, and it is bad.

No one should pretend any of those don't exist just because they are 'more' opposed to one or the other.

I'd give you a parade of aliens if I wasn't on my phone...

Assumption creep is just another flavor of bigotry. If I assume your love for hip hop music means you're probably a criminal, that’s racist assumption creep.

Eilzel wrote:I didn't excuse racism, I clearly said it exists. I think people who say 'I'm not racist but..' usually are racist. However, there are times when people are accused falsely. That is all.

Glad you finished your 4 post rant. Night.

Oh do grow up you child

Just because you have had someone shows your views to be poor and wrong learn to take criticism for once in your life

I never said people never were wrongly accused of racism, in fact I said sometimes people are if you had bothered to read in my reply to Eddie and sorry if better answers is a rant to you as it clearly left you agitated by the above infantile reply.
You made the view to excuse people for their own actions and if people are wrongly accused what did I say? That the law should protect them. Typical lefty over sensitive regressive
.
Grow up

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Assumption creed exists, and it is bad.
PC going too far happens, and it is bad.
Racism exists, and it is bad.

No one should pretend any of those don't exist just because they are 'more' opposed to one or the other.

I'd give you a parade of aliens if I wasn't on my phone...

Assumption creep is just another flavor of bigotry. If I assume your love for hip hop music means you're probably a criminal, that’s racist assumption creep.

It would be also stupid to assume that it does not influence and promote violence when it has led to, influenced and promoted violence.
You have heard of "Internet Banging" have you not?



Internet banging: New trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop

Abstract
Gang members carry guns and twitter accounts. Media outlets nationally have reported on a new phenomenon of gang affiliates using social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to trade insults or make violence threats that lead homicide or victimization. We term this interaction internet banging. Police departments in metropolitan areas have increased resources in their gang violence units to combat this issue. Interestingly, there is little to no literature on this issue. We argue internet banging is a cultural phenomenon that has evolved from increased participation with social media and represents an adaptive structuration, or new and unintended use of existing online social media. We examine internet banging within the context of gang violence, paying close attention to the mechanisms and processes that may explain how and why internet banging has evolved. We examine the role of hip-hop in the development of internet banging and highlight the changing roles of both hip hop and computer mediated communication as social representations of life in violent communities. We explore the presentation of urban masculinity and its influence on social media behavior. Lastly, we conduct a textual analysis of music and video content that demonstrates violent responses to virtual interactions.

Highlights

► Gang members use social media to incite violence. ► New trend in social media behavior has connections to hip hop music. ► Expressions of masculinity by African American males may explain internet banging behavior.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212003779

Just because some gangsters listen to rap doesn't mean rap fans are gangsters.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just because some gangsters listen to rap doesn't mean rap fans are gangsters.

When did I use "all"

There is a link to violence and that should not be ignored.

Again many people who love hip Hop are not violent but its people like you that need to understand you are not an expert on crime or violence or the links to them

@ Eilzel rubbishing poor, stating rightly they are idiotic views is not an insult, but educating you. If you take that as an insult, you are over sensitive.

I don't get why some people assume that those who say "I'm not racist but ..." must be racist. Aren't they making assumptions themselves?

Someone who is racist against black people is not likely to have black friends IMO, so I also don't understand why some people assume that those who say "I can't be racist, I have black friends" are racist. Of course they might be racist towards Asian people or something, but even so ...

Someone could say they weren't racist because they'd been accused of being racist, or because people are so quick to point the finger that it's an automatic defensive thing to say.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't get why some people assume that those who say "I'm not racist but ..." must be racist. Aren't they making assumptions themselves?

Someone who is racist against black people is not likely to have black friends IMO, so I also don't understand why some people assume that those who say "I can't be racist, I have black friends" are racist. Of course they might be racist towards Asian people or something, but even so ...

Someone could say they weren't racist because they'd been accused of being racist, or because people are so quick to point the finger that it's an automatic defensive thing to say.

And yet they will claim they have black friends when they do not

"I'm not racist, because I have black friends"

Why make such an assertion, if you are indeed not racist, its defensive that need not ever be stated if not for the fact the person generally is racist given also by their points of view and how they argue, which many people have been caught out time and again over.




Any sentence that starts with the words "I'm not prejudiced, but...," or similar formations ("I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not homophobic," "not sexist," etc.) is likely to contradict itself very rapidly. The technical term for this type of statement is false front, but the colloquial but-head is often used, with or without irony. Saying a sentence that starts with "I'm not X, but..." likely means that you are X.
These words are often spoken in the mistaken belief that simply saying "I'm not prejudiced" is enough to exempt the speaker from responsibility for the offensive comment they are about to make. In this context, the "I'm not prejudiced" statement is an example of argument by assertion, although it's sometimes backed up by non sequitur statements such as "I like curry"[2] or "I enjoy the music of Queen and the Pet Shop Boys,"[3] to demonstrate just how unprejudiced the speaker is.
Variations include ending the sentence with "not that there's anything wrong with being gay/black/whatever" after they have just made an offensive statement about them. Or the old classic, "I'm not anti-(fill in the blank), some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)." Or, for the truly curmudgeonly, "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally!" Or, as one editor's grandmother is fond of saying: "The Lord knows I cherish black people, but..."

Simultaneously, organizations which are undoubtedly racist have attempted to improve their image with the same kind of rhetoric. For example, in a policy statement for the far-right British National Party, leader Nick Griffin repeatedly states that the party is "not racist," while laying out his vision for an all-white Britain and his belief that nationality is defined along blood lines rather than residency or even cultural factors.[4]
If you have doubts as to the appropriateness of your words or beliefs or if you think they may marginalize others, the appropriate course of action is to scrutinize them and then if they are harmful, not express those things. Even if one ends up making a mistake, one good apology and a sincere and sustained effort to self-check and change one's outlook is more appreciated than any awkwardly non-sensical assertions of "I have a black friend" or "I'm not a bigot but... please overlook that I really want to say something that harmfully generalizes women/disabled people/people of varying gender and/or sexuality and/or ethnicity."

I'm not claiming anything but I have 1 black granddaughter and 2 black grandchildren, and I love 'em!

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't get why some people assume that those who say "I'm not racist but ..." must be racist. Aren't they making assumptions themselves?

Someone who is racist against black people is not likely to have black friends IMO, so I also don't understand why some people assume that those who say "I can't be racist, I have black friends" are racist. Of course they might be racist towards Asian people or something, but even so ...

Someone could say they weren't racist because they'd been accused of being racist, or because people are so quick to point the finger that it's an automatic defensive thing to say.

Pretty much. It's just how people word things.
I would never, ever start a sentence by saying "I'm not racist but....." Because I'm secure enough to know that I'm not.

nicko wrote:I'm not claiming anything but I have 1 black granddaughter and 2 black grandchildren,  and I love 'em!

Course you do, because they're your darling bubbas! X

Yet if you said anything negative about immigration, someone would jump on you and call you racist.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't get why some people assume that those who say "I'm not racist but ..." must be racist. Aren't they making assumptions themselves?

Someone who is racist against black people is not likely to have black friends IMO, so I also don't understand why some people assume that those who say "I can't be racist, I have black friends" are racist. Of course they might be racist towards Asian people or something, but even so ...

Someone could say they weren't racist because they'd been accused of being racist, or because people are so quick to point the finger that it's an automatic defensive thing to say.

Pretty much. It's just how people word things.
I would never, ever start a sentence by saying "I'm not racist but....." Because I'm secure enough to know that I'm not.

No its very much about how you need to understand how something contradicts, which I have been saying to you from the start

The problem is Eddie, is that you do not understand why, so not knocking, just you fail to see how people often with the but do contradict have offensive view within that statement.
Not only that you think everyone is a little racist which would contradict your comments aboev

Afternoon didge

Yes I do think evening is a little bit racist deep down, or perhaps tribalistic is more true?

Anyway, I don't think me saying that this country has a problem with economic migrants is racist but someone else might, which is why people say "I'm not racist but......I think we should weed out the economic migrants who take th piss from genuine, needy refugees"

eddie wrote:Afternoon didge

Yes I do think evening is a little bit racist deep down, or perhaps tribalistic is more true?

Anyway, I don't think me saying that this country has a problem with economic migrants is racist but someone else might, which is why people say "I'm not racist but......I think we should weed out the economic migrants who take th piss from genuine, needy refugees"

Hi Eddie

I fail to see why anyone would have an issue with migrants.
Never even claimed that was racist
The statement you then make does not contradict, where many others do.
I can write something that does not contradict Eddie, its not hard but people often say in the same sentence with, "I am not racist but" that ends up being offensive and is offensive, the point you miss. I never said every time "I am not racist, but" is used did I? Where I said most often, so to create one that does not contradict is poorly defending the many cases when it does


Hence why you clearly did not read the following

Any sentence that starts with the words "I'm not prejudiced, but...," or similar formations ("I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not homophobic," "not sexist," etc.) is likely to contradict itself very rapidly. The technical term for this type of statement is false front, but the colloquial but-head is often used, with or without irony. Saying a sentence that starts with "I'm not X, but..." likely means that you are X.
These words are often spoken in the mistaken belief that simply saying "I'm not prejudiced" is enough to exempt the speaker from responsibility for the offensive comment they are about to make. In this context, the "I'm not prejudiced" statement is an example of argument by assertion, although it's sometimes backed up by non sequitur statements such as "I like curry"[2] or "I enjoy the music of Queen and the Pet Shop Boys,"[3] to demonstrate just how unprejudiced the speaker is.
Variations include ending the sentence with "not that there's anything wrong with being gay/black/whatever" after they have just made an offensive statement about them. Or the old classic, "I'm not anti-(fill in the blank), some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)." Or, for the truly curmudgeonly, "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally!" Or, as one editor's grandmother is fond of saying: "The Lord knows I cherish black people, but..."

Simultaneously, organizations which are undoubtedly racist have attempted to improve their image with the same kind of rhetoric. For example, in a policy statement for the far-right British National Party, leader Nick Griffin repeatedly states that the party is "not racist," while laying out his vision for an all-white Britain and his belief that nationality is defined along blood lines rather than residency or even cultural factors.[4]
If you have doubts as to the appropriateness of your words or beliefs or if you think they may marginalize others, the appropriate course of action is to scrutinize them and then if they are harmful, not express those things. Even if one ends up making a mistake, one good apology and a sincere and sustained effort to self-check and change one's outlook is more appreciated than any awkwardly non-sensical assertions of "I have a black friend" or "I'm not a bigot but... please overlook that I really want to say something that harmfully generalizes women/disabled people/people of varying gender and/or sexuality and/or ethnicity."

Ah ok, see what you're saying now, think I logged in today with out drinking my coffee first

Well whatever the case, I have never and would never, start a sentence that way as I am confident in my views.

Good op eddie... not had chance to read whole article yet but I get what he's saying completely!


Just look how some of the things I say are twisted into other things...

nicko wrote:I'm not claiming anything but I have 1 black granddaughter and 2 black grandchildren,  and I love 'em!

How'd you manage that?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm not claiming anything but I have 1 black granddaughter and 2 black grandchildren,  and I love 'em!

How'd you manage that?

One of his children had sex with a black person?
Just a guess

It's all just part of the same bullshit that has been going on since the new labour govt in 97... anyone who questions or opposes the agenda is shouted down with accusations of SIXHIRB!

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm not claiming anything but I have 1 black granddaughter and 2 black grandchildren,  and I love 'em!

How'd you manage that?

One of his children had sex with a black person?
Just a guess

but is it 3 all up? like one daughter and 2 'children' 
or is the daughter one of the children

DAUGHTER-------1 BLACK CHILD---------=GRANDAUGHTER

GRANDAUGHTER---------2 BLACK CHILDREN---------2 GREAT GRAND CHILDREN

----ok?

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm not claiming anything but I have 1 black granddaughter and 2 black grandchildren,  and I love 'em!

How'd you manage that?

One of his children had sex with a black person?
Just a guess

but is it 3 all up? like one daughter and 2 'children' 
or is the daughter one of the children

Well yes, there is that lol and it actually confused me too. I think he meant 3 in all and one was a girl perhaps?

https://youtu.be/C6jiNMg1PAk

Tommy Monk wrote:



https://youtu.be/C6jiNMg1PAk

nicko wrote:DAUGHTER-------1 BLACK CHILD---------=GRANDAUGHTER

GRANDAUGHTER---------2 BLACK CHILDREN---------2 GREAT GRAND CHILDREN

----ok?

you missed the great in your first post

but i guess it is ok to forget things at your 'great grandpappy' age

one day veya...you too will close the fridge door...stand there and think....."what did I just put in there .....and do I want some more"

Lord Foul wrote:one day veya...you too will close the fridge door...stand there and think....."what did I just put in there .....and do I want some more"

this isn't the thread about cannabis 

pot head

Veya, I don't give a fuck what you think, wait! did I say that before?

nicko wrote:Veya,   I don't give a fuck what you think,   wait!  did I say that before?

Nicko he was joking actually - he was trying to be nice

eddie wrote:Afternoon didge

Yes I do think evening is a little bit racist deep down, or perhaps tribalistic is more true?

Anyway, I don't think me saying that this country has a problem with economic migrants is racist but someone else might, which is why people say "I'm not racist but......I think we should weed out the economic migrants who take th piss from genuine, needy refugees"

British people are unhappy with the continuing mass immigration into the country because of ALL of the various detrimental socio/economic impacts it is clearly having on us all in so many ways.

You are no more 'guilty' of 'racism' for saying this than you would be guilty of assault for asking someone to stop hitting you with a stick!!!

Or sexist for noticing that someone was a woman etc...


Utter madness!!!

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



https://youtu.be/C6jiNMg1PAk

Very apt... don't you think...?

most amusing Tommy....

https://youtu.be/vz4PjxSmtoI

https://youtu.be/lCis1U1nFR0

https://youtu.be/mu8bmMrfMYw