The American left has been drifting into authoritarianism

[Simon Paynton]

Autumn wrote:

It’s not a woke people problem; it’s a people problem.

Yes, but woke people are especially known for toxic authoritarian behaviour.  Apart from people hating on their political opponents, it’s the reason why “woke” and “social justice warrior” have become terms of insult.  This is how woke people come across to the rest of us:

[Unseen]

@Autumn

You wonder how to define the left?

This is adapted from the Wikipedia entry on “Left-Wing Politics”:

The left-wing supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition of social hierarchy. Left-wing politics typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, left-wing supporters “claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.”

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

@autumn – But there are bound to be some authoritarians amidst all those people. In general, I think the cries of ‘authoritarianism’ strain hyperbole.

Yes. it is hyperbole. I think if we described a “pile on” as a form of bullying and “fake” SJW’s as bullies and\or trolls then we would have a better descriptor of those engaged in such behavior.

@Simon I think your use of the word “woke” here is misplaced. You are talking about bullies and their behavior.

Yes, but woke people are especially known for toxic authoritarian behaviour.

Woke people are not especially known as such. Bullies are and “toxic authoritarian behaviour” would read better as just “toxic behavior”. I meet many religious bullies on a regular basis and many woke people in the non-wage paying work that I do.

By the way I think the word “hyperbole” is best word in the whole wide world ever without any exaggeration! 😊

[Simon Paynton]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I think your use of the word “woke” here is misplaced. You are talking about bullies and their behavior.

I’m talking about Puritans, whether religious or political.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

@autumn You wonder how to define the left?

Nope.

[—]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

It’s not a woke people problem; it’s a people problem.

Yes, but woke people are especially known for toxic authoritarian behaviour.

For me, the as someone who exists within both in the minority groups they tend to speak up for and the majority groups whose privilege they tend to challenge, the woke do not appear more toxic than humans generally are or than the ‘other side’ (however you’d like to envision it) is.

 

[Simon Paynton]

Simon Paynton wrote:

I’m talking about Puritans, whether religious or political.

I don’t include @autumn in that.  Far from all woke people are obnoxious.

[—]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

@autumn – But there are bound to be some authoritarians amidst all those people. In general, I think the cries of ‘authoritarianism’ strain hyperbole.

Yes. it is hyperbole. I think if we described a “pile on” as a form of bullying and “fake” SJW’s as bullies and\or trolls then we would have a better descriptor of those engaged in such behavior.

I think part of it is we mostly see the tip of the spear. And in this case, that tip is honed against everything that actually provokes a negative emotional response. And for people who are staring at the tip thinking it’s coming for them, that’s all they fucking see. But it represents a small fraction of the whole.

And for the rest of us, when we see someone like Simon throwing himself at the spear screaming oppression, we don’t get the volume of crying; sharp edges are every day life for better or worse, ’cause you know, the situation’s always been nasty.

I’m reluctant to call the pile ons bullying even if that can be true. There has been a lot of dysfunction around conversations on social rights and that extends back further than any of us have been alive. And we’ve inherited and perpetuated that dysfunction. So while the pile on may be a destructive force, and in cases where it’s misdirected it can be bullying, I get some of the pain and anger that drives it.

[Davis]

But are you denying that the Left has an authoritarian element?

Simon, your overgeneralisations are getting bloody tedious.

[Davis]

You don’t know what someone is going to say until they say it.

Yes Unseen, that is tautologically true. That still doesn’t convince me that inviting someone whose expertise on a topic is as menial as yours or mine is, at an ACADEMIC event makes any bloody sense.

but over time people’s views can change or be more nuanced than you’ve been led to believe

This is true. I still do not see the purpose in inviting an expert on disease control come and talk about the history of labour relations at an ACADEMIC event when they know about as much as you or Enco or I do about it.

…Joe Rogan…

If you had read my post you would have noted that I was referring to academia and nothing else. Joe Rogan is not an academic and can do and say whatever he likes on his show. I think he said a fair bit of super stupid bullshit regarding COVID, gave voice to speakers with dangerous ideas without properly questioning it and did great harm by not being even moderately more careful or critical. Having said that, it is a radio show, he can do what he wants and he will also pay a social and commercial price for what he does (hence the backlash). None of this has anything to do with my particular argument in my above comment regarding academic events.

[Simon Paynton]

Davis wrote:

Simon, your overgeneralisations are getting bloody tedious.

Only if you don’t like the Left being criticised.  Don’t cancel me now.

[Davis]

Only if you don’t like the Left being criticised.  Don’t cancel me now.

Groan

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Yes Simon, I’m talking about Puritans too. 🙂

[—]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Davis wrote:

Simon, your overgeneralisations are getting bloody tedious.

Only if you don’t like the Left being criticised. Don’t cancel me now.

The question is whether or not you are actually providing criticism. I criticize the left all the damn time. But I do my damn best to make sure the criticism targets what people are actually saying. I do not always hit the mark, but rather than starting from the point that they are wrong and I need to counter, I start from the point if I even understand what is being said.

With the convoy in Canada, I’ve been doing the same. While I am subject to cognitive bias, and I can’t always resist getting in a dig here and there, I generally resist dismissing the convoys with convenient broadbrush strokes such as ‘they are racist therefore their stance on vaccine policies are wrong’. Which is not to suggest I dismiss the presence of Nazi and Confederate flags. There is a legitimate question of why white nationalism feels the convoy is a natural ally. But the convoy doesn’t become wrong because of that. It doesn’t become authoritarian because of that.

I don’t care that from time to time you might grumble on about the ‘authoritarian left’. We’re all prone to rhetoric. It’s that you don’t provide substantive critique. Anecdotes mean little because there are millions of dysfunctional clashes going on all around us, and while I can choose to weigh in individually, the fact that I can point to a number of cases where people on the left, right, and whatever have done wrong by others, but what does this mean for the big picture? It’s like trying to assess general public health from a single chemo ward.

[—]

Bleh. I was writing quickly between other things. A number of those sentences are more of a mess than normal.

[Author]

Posts