RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Illiberal left

Illiberal left | Result: Kept

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) As is, this article would be better off being scrapped outright. It takes a subject of considerable debate within liberal politics, and basically reduces it to "one side is completely 100% right, the other side is entirely concern trolling from conservatives". I don't particularly see the need for an article on the "illiberal left" in the first place, and at any rate, an article like this one does a massive disservice to the concept. As currently presented, this article is nothing more than a character assassination on Jonathan Chait along with a complete misrepresentation of both his ideas and the way those ideas have been received in liberal circles. 174.44.202.247 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The "TL;DR"-summary of that article would be "NO YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111". Put it out of it's misery.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I noticed "regressive left" redirects here, which is a very real phenomena used by New Atheists and similar Enlightenment-esque groups to critique the 'everything goes' postmodernism that the left seems to embrace, especially in Europe. This article, by comparison, is basically one conservative's (Jonathan Chait) opinion of this part of left, which only vaguely resembles the actual criticisms against it. The article then debunks this conservative strawman And...that's about it. The New Atheists are mentioned in one sentence, and then dismissed in the next. The article also has a hilarious SJW bent, with a reference to a Vox.com article to say "ultimately sounded like an out of touch old white man who misunderstands that "PC" is generally just being a decent human being."


 * Essentially, there are valid points from within the left (and occasionally elsewhere) about this topic, and this article does nothing to address them. It's about a particular conservative strawman.


 * I'm thinking of writing a page about the Regressive Left, if I do I'd recommend this page be merged to that one as a part dealing with the conservative viewpoint. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) No reason to delete from driveby IP - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Might need some massaging, but whitewashing the inherent reactionary bent of the term would be silly. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) --JorisEnter (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is as necessary as its need of rewriting. 01:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep, but it does need a reboot. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Typhoon (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

 * 1) Alright, I've created a page on the regressive left, and I suggest this page be merged into it, specifically into the section dealing with the term's use a conservative snarl word. I choose to move to "regressive left" rather than just rewrite "illiberal left" because the former term is much more common, especially among liberals (and this wiki is written from a liberal standpoint).
 * As for the page itself, I went into detail about the liberal concept of the idea, rather than focusing entirely on its usage as a conservative talking point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good so far, although we could use incorporating some of the snarky tone from the old one. It's use even by some liberals is not well-justified, generally going hand-in-hand with nominally-liberal-but-actually-kinda-racist Sam Harris sort of people. We could stand to emphasise that, but I'm not sure where to put it. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I focused on the academic definition, so there wasn't as much snark as there could be. Also, much of the snark in the old article was mostly because it assumed the concept was entirely a conservative invention. As for liberal misuse, perhaps we could add a new sub-section dealing with questionable usage?
 * Also, I never really understood the criticism of Sam Harris and the other New Atheists. Granted, I've never read their books, but I always assumed their main problem was treating Islam as a single block, and insisting on a particularly violent interpretation. I'd say they aren't trying to misconstrue things, but just do because they're looking at Islam from a Western perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, again I've never read their books, only some of their op-eds and watched some debates.
 * The real problem is that Arabic critics of Islam, Abdullah al-Qasemi, Abu Isa al-Warraq, Abbas Abdul Noor, etc either haven't been translated or are relatively unknown. We need more critics from the Arab world, instead of having to rely on Westerners like Harris. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge. 22:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't merge. The "terms" have different intended meanings/connotations. "Illiberal left" alleges authoritarian tendencies when dealing with dissent, "regressive left" alleges coddling non-progressive ideas, or more precisely, Islam.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ^^^what he said. Merging them would be a mistake. Typhoon (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Their use as snarl words is extremely similar, though. 22:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the distinction, but I don't see why need two separate pages. The regressive left page already says "the term has been extended to encompass any leftist position that appears contradictory to progressive values" which would include authoritarian regimes. Also, the current page on illiberal left barely touches that definition, focusing entirely on the term's use as a snarl word - and the people using the terms as snarl words probably wouldn't know the difference.

Goat

 * 1) Kept. 16:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding us of the word "kept" in the title. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)