Talk:Illiberal left

‎63.143.200.126's edits

Made the article less accurate. Para 2, in particular, was a complete mess parroting the trope equating social justice with censorship. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The article as it was basically portrayed Jonathan Chait, a highly respected figure in journalism known for his liberal views, as nothing more than a concern troll. It also completely dismissed his points. While conservatives have used the term "illiberal left" as something of a boogeyman, that doesn't automatically make the term worthless. 174.44.202.247 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are some problems with your edits as they stand:

1. It's currently only used inside conservative and neoreactionary circles, removing 'new conservative talking point' implies it has a wider use than it does, and gives the idea too much credence. (Rebuttal: It's used by Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt, Kirsten Powers, Bill Maher, Maajid Nawaz, Ralph Nadar, Nicolas Kristof, even JK Rowling, all moderates or liberals. Should I also list the large number of liberal comedians that say they no longer do shows at college campuses because of this culture? There's Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, John Cleese, and likely more. This is no longer a "new conservative talking point," and to label their voices as "neoreactionary" (whatever that means) is to swaddle yourself in a blanket so you don't have to confront their actual concerns. And more obviously, you say in the article the concept was initiated by Jonathan Chait, a liberal, so claiming it's purely a "conservative" talking point is highly misleading at best. If you want a huge, even-handed breakdown of the actual arguments behind this concept, check out this article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges)
2. If you're going to say there have been multiple examples, you need to give more than Mao.
3. Citing 'identity politics' at all is a reactionary dog-whistle, doubly so when paired with references to New Left. (Rebuttal: Replace IP with "intersectional politics," or whatever suits your fancy, the meaning is the same, and to think this concept isn't a "real thing" just implies you are out of touch with what the regressive left bases their belief system upon. Hint: being politically correct isn't "just be a better person!" as you naively imply. I want to see you frame things like this: http://claremontindependent.com/scripps-students-protest-madeleine-albright-because-she-is-a-white-feminist/ as "oh, this is just people trying to be nice to each other!")
4. Changing the Chait criticism to being 'out of touch with the new left' is hogwash, as criticism of 'PC culture' almost universally comes from a position of Old Man Shouts at Cloud, and criticism of that shouting is in no way a specific feature of the New Left (which, by the way, doesn't seem to mean what you think it means). The trope that there is a recent form of leftism that's out of touch with its roots and fundamentally illiberal is the very rebranding the article should be trying to debunk- it's a product of people on the conservative side of the fence wanting the perceived kudos that comes with being considered liberal, and redefining liberalism to match themselves. Hence, anything less conservative than them has to be made out to be not proper liberalism in some way. (Rebuttal: Whatever "New Left" may represent, the point stands that you're making Chait the "official leader" while simultaneously making him a caricature in order to outright ignore any possible merits of his argument. Many more liberals are on board with the term regressive/illiberal left, and Chait isn't a designated representative of the movement. You couldn't be ad hominem'ing any harder if you tried.)
5. The Western world being engaged in a debate about the merits of absolute free speech is absurd hyperbole; absolute free speech has never been the mainstream opinion, and has no foundations that are being questioned-- instead proponents of absolute free speech are clamouring for its adoption over sensible objections. This is not to say that the pendulum doesn't swing too far sometimes, but the debate is largely one of 'loudmouths who don't understand politics or culture complaining that they can't use twitter to say whatever racist crap they want' vs everyone else. (Rebuttal: The argument and term is rarely in reference to twitter. It concerns primarily college campuses and their policy of word-banning, idea-banning, speaker-banning and conversation-banning policies in the name of providing a "safe space" for their paying customers, I mean student population. You seem to really have no understanding of what the term "illiberal left" is used to represent. Do some research on the topic if you're going to put in the effort to criticize it. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/spiked-online.com/images/Jonathan_2.png )
6. Mao aside, I haven't seen any evidence that it's ever valid.
7. The link between the term's use and some people's inability to accept that speech can have social consequences shouldn't be deleted; it's a pretty obvious connection. (Rebuttal: Of course speech has social consequences. The problem is that the speech of one's political opponents, especially conservatives or moderates, are now being swept under the "hate speech" category. Debating gay marriage? Hate speech. Debating affirmative action? Hate speech. Debating the merits of feminism? Hate speech.)

Those are the problems. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's only used among conservatives? What about the original Chait article? Either you're claiming that Chait himself is basically a stealth conservative trying to concern troll people (which is absurd, as anyone who's familiar with the man's work knows), that absolutely no one else on the left agreed with Chait (which is provably false, there's an abundance of articles by other liberals and centrists and leftists agreeing with him), or your claim that it's only used by conservatives is wrong.

As for Mao, is he really the only example you can think of? There have been other left-wing dictators, you know. But that's besides the point, I don't really care for the Mao example either, I only kept it in because it was already there. I think it's a completely over-the-top example for this article. The totalitarian left is always illiberal, by definition, but the illiberal left does not always reach totalitarian extremes. As used by Chait and others, the term refers more to the illiberal democratic left than the totalitarian left.

Clearly you disagree with Chait's views, but to dismiss him as an "old man yelling at clouds" is ridiculous. No, the article should not be trying to "debunk" his concept of the illiberal left as if it was crackpottery. I'm not saying it should take the opposite stance either, but it should show that there are genuinely two sides of the debate, whereas it currently makes it seem as if one side doesn't exist at all except as a conservative strawman.

The fact that absolutist free speech has never been the mainstream opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that it was one of the core principles of classical liberal thought.

Here are some of those examples I mentioned earlier: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/12/455797419/college-protests-raise-questions-about-culture-of-political-correctness, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/28/chait-to-pc-police-your-outrage-is-like-sexy-hot-wax-to-me.html, http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2015/11/19/Stop-the-PC-madness-on-campus/stories/201511200091, http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2015/12/jonathan-chait-on-pc-thought.html - plus the following two which are partially sympathetic to Chait, while still disagreeing with him in some areas: http://www.thenation.com/article/jonathan-chait-and-new-pc/, http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/ - and that's just what I could find with a quick Google search

It's also worth noting that Chait himself objected to his article's use as a conservative talking point: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/political-correctness-good-for-the-left.html

So while my version of the article is far from perfect (mostly because it's just reconstructed from the utter mess that was here), the previous version was absolutely horrible. It was basically just a character assassination on 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) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with this article

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, but if such an article has to exist, you shouldn't do such a massive disservice to the concept here. 174.44.202.247 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Then AfD it, if you think so.

Also, sign up for an account. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, really

I'm not going to give up what was a reasonable encyclopedia because a bunch of alt-right assholes have invaded it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's go with it. It's the new wave. We can go all maximum Trumpalo; hell, I'll even start re-writing the Vox Day article to show him as a true leader of right and good and one of the best leading lights of the alt-right. FCP and the rest don't seem to mind them, so why shouldn't we join them straight out? Save time, saves trouble, saves headache. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Never surrender. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, nope, nope, that's more of that idealism bullshit.

Go along to get along. Salute the current flag, and after the revolution comes, salute that flag and parrot the slogans, and after that, rinse, repeat. Survive. There's no point to anything else.

I mean, hell, I can't see any real difference between the alt-right and the Mona Crew - switch the jargon out, and it's the same speech - so why not? Why give yourself a headache? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Because idealism will win in the end. Hipocrite (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But, let's be clear - no one has supported the text yet. Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Aeonian does, and he's in good with the right people, so why fight it?

And no, idealism never wins. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right? As in Neo-Nazis on the net? Who do you accuse of being a Net-Nazi? Remember: Not everything to the right of you is a "reactionary" or a Net-Nazi.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right is not neo-nazi. Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

According to this paragraph of the article on the neoreactionaries, they are quite close to Neo-Nazis.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That paragraph is wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Did I accidentally spread the edit war here to the article about NRx?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Fuck you, really. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I love you, too, cutiepie.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Castaigne's removal of a pile of blather that belongs in an essay somewhere - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Castaigne the one adding that shit? And it's cute you guys think I'm "reactionary." Westerners never cease to amaze. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No one has said a fucking word about you being "reactionary," you offendatron. Hipocrite (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"offenatron?" Castaigne is in in this thread going on about "surrounding to the Trumpalo," and he also said "I can't see any real difference between the alt-right and the Mona Crew." And later he explicitly mentioned me as one of the supporters of his edit. I'm guessing I belong to this "Mona Crew" in your heads, which would make be "alt-right." Funny how you guys complain about the "SJW cabal" being nonsense, but you're quick to come up with an alt-right cabal, apparently led by Mona, threatening you. Hilarious, really. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were reactionary. Who said that?

Also, I don't speak for Hipocrite, so how about you stop taking what -I- said and talk with me if you have a problem with it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys! Please cut down on the personal attacks! Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thrash out your planned heavy rewrite on a subpage, get consensus on it. Changing the entire meaning of the article probably requires it. Also, the new version is fucking awful writing - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory articles

Our page on ideological identity politics is fairly critical of the concept and notes that it can be authoritarian and came out of the New Left, but then this talk page says any such talk is just reactionary garbage? Wouldn't an authoritarian varient of identity politics be anti-colonialist nationalist regimes which claimed to channel the will of their respective peoples and, as several of our pages notes (such as this one), had support from some members of the New Left (at least initially)? I think we should be consistant on this. Is hard-left identity politics free from such criticism without being accused of being an Alt-rightist (?) or not? Personally I think that by not addressing it properly and with nuance (i.e. seperating genuine authoritarian tendencies from right-wing strawmen and conspiracy theories) it allows wingnuts to be the loudest voices in the conversation but whatever my opinion really doesn't matter I just think the wiki is contradicting itself and should be consistant one way or the other. ClothCoat (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to come out on the side of "We have our heads in the sand when it comes to admitting there's a huge problem with the regressive/illiberal left".

I think that perhaps there's a fundamental difference in what we view as the goal of the "left". There are those that believe we should include everyone in society, regardless of how well they get along with others. I actually disagree; I have no love lost for those that demand that they get to oppress others. I believe in "reciprocal tolerance", that is, we should tolerate everything but intolerance. That means that when a group is acting or holds a believe that goes completely contradictory to what the left is supposed to be about, we shouldn't go out of our way to include them.

I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it on the grounds that you aren't advocating restricting the rights of anyone else. That means I'll defend your right to say that nudism is fine even though I disagree, but I will not defend your 'right' to say that non-nudists should be castrated. CorruptUser (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to free speech I think we should be specific. I think lunatics have a legal right to say something crazy like "non-nudists should be castrated" (though they don't have a right to conspire to commit a crime such as specifically plotting to act on such a belief which is already illegal), just that it shouldn't be acceptable to society at large. ClothCoat (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the problem of having free speech vs hate speech.

Speech should not be libelous. If a speech is false, damaging, and unreasonable (that is, a reasonable person wouldn't already think that), then it's not something that should be protected; I shouldn't be allowed to say "Cloth Coat raped a puppy last night" unless I have actual evidence for such an embarrassing claim.

Speech should not cause immediate damage or panic. This is the whole "fire in a crowded theater" trope.

Speech should not grant you unearned priviliges or subvert the ability of essential services to operate. I can't claim to be a doctor and then dispense medical advice, as this is damaging and erodes trust in doctors. For similar reasons, impersonating a police officer is one of the most serious offenses there is, "free speech" be damned.

And now we get to hate speech. I'm not sure I should be allowed to make statements about entire demographics that are both damaging and demonstrably false, and more importantly I should definitely not be allowed to advocate acting upon these claims. The statement "all black men are rapists" is both false and damaging, and saying "...therefore we should castrate all black men" is most definitely a call to action and thus hate speech. However, saying "black men commit more crimes than white men", while damaging, is not technically false nor is it considered an unreasonable thing for the average person to believe, so it would not fall under hate speech. This gets into very thorny territory; is saying "because black men are more likely to commit crimes therefore we should adopt stop and frisk policies" hate speech? Possibly. CorruptUser (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Fire in a croweded theatre" line is overused considering that it was used as an excuse to outlaw the views of pacifists in world war one and is extremely outdated as a legal standard (http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html). The reason we don't outlaw speech based on extrapolating whether or not it will be dangerous in the future is that it's a vague and fuzzy way to regulate speech. Could I outlaw Bernie Sanders views for presenting society as a class conflict where the wealthy are the primary issue with modern society? I could easily see some rich person saying this makes them feel unsafe by encouraging hostility towards them on the basis of class and finding some overgeneralizations made of their "demagraphic" as a basis for suing. Could we outlaw Communist Parties who still follow Marxist-Leninist lines, who similarly have speech that would be considered dangerous by middle class people and make insane claims? I think that's why limits to speech should be limited to very specific instances of people posing a specific DIRECT threat to others, which is generally how the laws are currently in the US. So yes, if you say "Go castrate black people" to your followers you're making a direct call for imminent lawlessness that clearly threatens others, but when you start going beyond that in terms of what to ban it starts getting fuzzy. It's worth noting that those hate speech laws in the UK have backfired in some ways. Homophobic pastors have been arrested on the basis of such laws but because such laws are vague they are sometimes later released and compensated, causing the state to fund bigots. ClothCoat (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, I think there should be rules that for hate crime laws A) a reasonable person would find the speech "dangerous" and B) the speech must be clear and present danger rather than "might cause trouble years from now". So advocating Marxism should be allowed; telling people to organize a violent Marxist rebellion should not be, but telling people to revolt through the election system by voting for the Communist Party is most definitely something that should be protected. CorruptUser (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Subtext

Since this article is in vogue, I must complain about the general subtext and in some areas, such as the opening quote, outright text. The general message, it seems, is that being "woke" is bad and that we live in some kind of declining utopia. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If the intent was to create some kind of nuanced point, then I fear the article has failed in that purpose. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)