- Pantsuit
- Oct 28, 2013
-
|
I largely support Remain because, like others have said, the EU constrains the worst excesses of our government, so it's kinda necessary to stop the pigfuckers from going into Full Victorianism Now mode. However it is ultimately a vehicle for capitalism and neoliberalism, not to mention massively racist, so gently caress the EU.
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 17:20
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2024 10:38
|
|
- Pantsuit
- Oct 28, 2013
-
|
Christ there are a lot of whiny crybabies in this thread, it's no wonder left wing politics are seen as a joke. Go back to your loving hugbox echochambers.
Actually I have a serious point: this whole 'no-platforming' concept or really any form of this infantilising bullshit relies on x group laying claim to an absolute Correct Thought which is beyond reproach and cannot be challenged. There's a right and a wrong and the person moaning knows what that is and that is immoveable. I generally agree with the fundamentals of what most of these people who irritate me so much say, but that's because, as a result of the circles I move in and the things I read, these ideas are accessible to me and as a result I have had the opportunity to engage with them and have found them largely convincing.
Now this is probably the same situation the NUS lady (and plenty of other people) find themselves in. They know what is right, because they have looked at the arguments and have been convinced. They consider (as do I) those who spout right wing drivel idiots. That's fine, they're certain of their position and they're not taking any bullshit on it, which is admirable. That part's not the problem. However, the 'correctness' of any position can only every be demonstrated by strength of argument, and without that it's just dogmatic orthodoxy. Few people on the left would admit being dogmatic and thoughtless, but that's how they come across when they pull the whole 'no-platorm' thing. They're probably not actually dogmatic - they have been persuaded by the arguments and ideas they have access to. But that's the important thing.
Here's the big problem, I think. An absolutely huge percentage of the population simply does not, for one reason or another, have access to the ideas and concepts that we take for granted when we judge the strength of an argument and end up identifying as socialists. Yeah, the literature is there if they look for it, but a great many people can't be arsed reading articles on the internet, much less combing through proper academic literature. You can say that's a bad thing, and maybe it is, but it's not the point. For whatever reason they aren't in a position that has allowed them to formulate a proper ideological position. They need to be convinced. The person calling for the 'no-platorming' or whatever is convinced of their own correctness. As I've said, that's no bad thing. However they're also either assuming that any potential audience is equally established in their position, or worse, they're stating that they don't care about the opinions of anyone else. That's when we have to think about the whole point of debate, and more broadly the whole point of a socialist ideology. By publically debating those who we deem ideologically flawed, we can expose the stupidity of their position. People will see us arguing and two things will happen: 1. they'll give us a baseline of respect for actually fighting our corner, and 2. they may or may not be convinced - if we debate well and, importantly, accessibly, we'll gradually bring people into the fold as they are provided the opportunity to formulate an ideological position for themselves. Some people will remain neutral or may go to the other side, but that's always a risk and it's something that can be minimised by effective debate. We know that what we believe is Correct, or we wouldn't believe it. Exposing our ideology to attack and allowing it to stand on its considerable merits is very important. It has to be challenged, and it has to win that challenge. By shying away from debate and trying to censor other opinions, flawed though they may be, we do ourselves a disservice. We appear cowardly, we imply that we don't have the confidence in our position to defend it with conviction, we play into the stereotype of the left that the press loves - a bunch of whiny babies who can't take criticism and shout down dissent.
This is a really important thing for the left to learn in general. No-platforming, safe spaces, trigger warnings etc have always made me uncomfortable despite never really being able to put my finger on why, but I think I know why now. Thinking about the whole point of left wing politics - solidarity against the forces of oppression in whatever form they may take - by no-platforming etc we do truly become the hypocrites the right wing press paints us as. By refusing to debate and to defend our arguments in public we deny those less politically minded the opportunity to access the ideas we have constructed our opinions about what is right and wrong around, and we implicitly reserve the right of Correctness to an exclusive clique. If they aren't in a situation where they can access the debates individually - whether that's down to lack of resources or lack of will - the only chance we have to get them on side is to show our strength, and the weakness of our opponents. By making it absolutely loving clear who is right and wrong and why that is and what is possible and how. That willingness to debate and effectively make the message accessible to everyone is the most basic expression of the solidarity that is supposed to be fundamental to socialism. By prioritising the feelings of the individual, the right to not be offended etc we shirk our ideological responsibility to liberate people in every possible sense. If we're actually as socialist as we think, we should gladly suffer the frustration and hurt feelings that goes with debating idiots. We're not doing it for ourselves, we're doing it for an ideology and in the pursuit of a better world. I think that this proliferation of individualist rubbish within ostensibly socialist movements is just testament to the fact that almost all of them have been corrupted by spineless liberals.
e: that was all over the place because it's half one and I'm shattered, but I hope the general idea is clear enough
Imagine actually reading this post
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 02:30
|
|
- Pantsuit
- Oct 28, 2013
-
|
unless i have fundamentally misunderstood some primal terror that lurks in the hearts of the british, of course
corbyn doesn't think refugees are a purely evil horde of rapists
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 15:08
|
|
- Pantsuit
- Oct 28, 2013
-
|
it's depressing how many righties completely dominate the press, government, culture and society in general.
e: just saw this absolute gold. hilarious coming from a kipper.
https://twitter.com/c123_adam/status/701056127056875521
Pantsuit fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Feb 21, 2016
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 13:46
|
|
- Pantsuit
- Oct 28, 2013
-
|
'Feminazi' to me just means 'woman i don't like and want to smear as crazy/hysterical'. Just dudes wanting to make women feel bad for speaking up pretty much.
What does 'going too far' mean anyway? Does women earning actual parity with men, not having to live under constant fear of rape etc too far? I think some of the users of feminazi just don't like feminism and want to create a vague perfect feminism so that they can judge feminists against some unknowable criteria and deem them lacking. They see the goals of feminism as a threat, and evoking nazis is a way to discredit them.
Obviously the male urge to present women as irrational/hysterical is nothing new. Feminazi is just a continuation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 02:41
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2024 10:38
|
|
- Pantsuit
- Oct 28, 2013
-
|
I loving hate BrewDog. Never drank it but the whole 'equity for punks' aesthetic really puts me off. Wankers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 15:44
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 17:20
