Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?
Discussion
otolith said:
"The Left is more venal and has more antipathy to the opposition than the other way round. "
That's because of this way of thinking;
"The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing."
If you disagree, you are not just wrong, you are a bad person.
I think it was a John Cleese clip I've seen where he's talking about how having enemies is as good as it allows you to think that all the badness in the world is in your enemies and that all the goodness is in you. That's because of this way of thinking;
"The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing."
If you disagree, you are not just wrong, you are a bad person.
Without an ideology that others can disagree with they'd be nothing as they wouldn't have an enemy to label as the baddie!
bobbo89 said:
otolith said:
"The Left is more venal and has more antipathy to the opposition than the other way round. "
That's because of this way of thinking;
"The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing."
If you disagree, you are not just wrong, you are a bad person.
I think it was a John Cleese clip I've seen where he's talking about how having enemies is as good as it allows you to think that all the badness in the world is in your enemies and that all the goodness is in you. That's because of this way of thinking;
"The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing."
If you disagree, you are not just wrong, you are a bad person.
Without an ideology that others can disagree with they'd be nothing as they wouldn't have an enemy to label as the baddie!
People grouping another group together as the enemy (lefties) and labelling them with common characteristics and behaviours
El stovey said:
That’s what this thread is though.
People grouping another group together as the enemy (lefties) and labelling them with common characteristics and behaviours
Human nature. We ignore it at our peril...we are nothing but animals who think we're intelligent, yet are driven by baser instincts...and try to convince ourselves we aren't People grouping another group together as the enemy (lefties) and labelling them with common characteristics and behaviours
El stovey said:
bobbo89 said:
otolith said:
"The Left is more venal and has more antipathy to the opposition than the other way round. "
That's because of this way of thinking;
"The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing."
If you disagree, you are not just wrong, you are a bad person.
I think it was a John Cleese clip I've seen where he's talking about how having enemies is as good as it allows you to think that all the badness in the world is in your enemies and that all the goodness is in you. That's because of this way of thinking;
"The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing."
If you disagree, you are not just wrong, you are a bad person.
Without an ideology that others can disagree with they'd be nothing as they wouldn't have an enemy to label as the baddie!
People grouping another group together as the enemy (lefties) and labelling them with common characteristics and behaviours
People with no accomplishments of their own are defined solely by what they hate.
Often that hate is entirely irrational. So much so that they will ignore that their own behaviour is similar to the people they decry... But their behaviours is excusable because they aren't "lefties".
The problem isn't left or right. It's moderates vs extremists. Extremists exist on the edge of all sides of the political compass, each side would have us believe that their opponents are bad and only their side can be good.
I've no issue with the right or the left. I find it's the people who go to any extreme that are less tolerant of anything they disagree with.
But watch as both of our comments are bashed because we don't share the groupthink.
Barring people at the extremes, it's my broad feeling that:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
- economically naive
- motivated by impractical idealism
- at worst, motivated by envy of the successful or privileged
- stupid
- evil
Murph7355 said:
Human nature. We ignore it at our peril...we are nothing but animals who think we're intelligent, yet are driven by baser instincts...and try to convince ourselves we aren't
It’s not really. Human nature is wanting to protect your family and tribe from danger.This is messed up human nature where people are feeling the same tribal affinity but instead of to natural groups like family and tribe it’s to completely artificial constructs like country or political parties, ideology, and religion etc
Johnnytheboy said:
Barring people at the extremes, it's my broad feeling that:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
- economically naive
- motivated by impractical idealism
- at worst, motivated by envy of the successful or privileged
- stupid
- evil
otolith said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Barring people at the extremes, it's my broad feeling that:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
- economically naive
- motivated by impractical idealism
- at worst, motivated by envy of the successful or privileged
- stupid
- evil
My gut feel is that most moderates to the right would have just as much of a problem with extremists on their own side as they would with extremists on the left. Moderates on the left feel obligated to be apologists for extremists on the left.
Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
Johnnytheboy said:
Barring people at the extremes, it's my broad feeling that:
People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
What's the difference between considering somebody to be "economically naive" or "impractically idealistic" and considering them "stupid"? To answer my own question - there isn't; the first two are just politer terms for "stupid" it's just meant to imply that those on the "Right" are somehow more pleasant chaps.....People on the right view those on the left as one or more of:
- economically naive
- motivated by impractical idealism
- at worst, motivated by envy of the successful or privileged
- stupid
- evil
It's my broad feeling that people will always make excuses for the extremists on "their" side of the spectrum and argue those on the "other" side are far worse.
AstonZagato said:
My gut feel is that most moderates to the right would have just as much of a problem with extremists on their own side as they would with extremists on the left. Moderates on the left feel obligated to be apologists for extremists on the left.
Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
As a "lefty" I'd just like to say that I'm "horrified" by communism. So perhaps you are just seeing what you want to?Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
Randy Winkman said:
AstonZagato said:
My gut feel is that most moderates to the right would have just as much of a problem with extremists on their own side as they would with extremists on the left. Moderates on the left feel obligated to be apologists for extremists on the left.
Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
As a "lefty" I'd just like to say that I'm "horrified" by communism. So perhaps you are just seeing what you want to?Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
Randy Winkman said:
AstonZagato said:
My gut feel is that most moderates to the right would have just as much of a problem with extremists on their own side as they would with extremists on the left. Moderates on the left feel obligated to be apologists for extremists on the left.
Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
As a "lefty" I'd just like to say that I'm "horrified" by communism. So perhaps you are just seeing what you want to?Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
AstonZagato said:
Like John McDonnell campaigning in front of Lenin or Abbott defending Mao?
McDonnell and Abbott are both idiots. McDonnell especially is a dangerous ideological idiot.TBF to Abbott what she apparently said was.
“Comments about Mao Zedong
In 2008, during a BBC One This Week interview between Abbott, Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil about who was history's worst dictator, Abbott said about the Chinese leader Mao Zedong: "I suppose some people will judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm... He led his country from feudalism, he helped to defeat the Japanese and he left his country on the verge of the great economic success they are having now." She finished by saying: "I was just putting the case for Mao."
It was a debate about who was history’s worst dictator not whether Mao was a good guy or not. I think you will still find people in China who do think that mao did more good than harm so it’s possibly not as thick as it sounds.
Abbott is an idiot though and has said plenty of stupid things like her comments on black mums wanting to do the best for their kids (or whatever it was) so I think I’m giving her too much benefit of the doubt.
I think Mao was history’s worst dictator myself and did infinitely more harm than good and then Stalin and Hitler second and third on the list.
Countdown said:
What's the difference between considering somebody to be "economically naive" or "impractically idealistic" and considering them "stupid"? To answer my own question - there isn't; the first two are just politer terms for "stupid" it's just meant to imply that those on the "Right" are somehow more pleasant chaps.....
It's my broad feeling that people will always make excuses for the extremists on "their" side of the spectrum and argue those on the "other" side are far worse.
Funnily enough you are reading what you want to from my post. It's my broad feeling that people will always make excuses for the extremists on "their" side of the spectrum and argue those on the "other" side are far worse.
My point was that I feel that most people on the centre right can understand the reason people are left wing, they have just come to a different conclusion. e.g. I think more funding for public services is a great idea in theory, but my vague understanding of economics stops me thinking that trumps an inability to pay for it.
Most even on the even very slightly left don't seem to be able to imagine how anyone could be right wing unless they were either stupid or evil. Or at the very least motivated by self-interest alone.
AstonZagato said:
My gut feel is that most moderates to the right would have just as much of a problem with extremists on their own side as they would with extremists on the left. Moderates on the left feel obligated to be apologists for extremists on the left.
Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
As far as I am concerned my centre right politics have zero to do with far right politics as in most senses my opinions are diametrically opposed. To me someone who is classically "far right" will believe in:Ask a Tory what he/she thinks of the EDL and you will get (in the main) a negative/horrified opinion. Ask a Labourite for opinion on communism and you'll more likely get a neutral or even positive view (hence Mao "did more good than harm" and shadow ministers campaigning in front of pictures of Lenin). It is difficult to imagine a Tory standing in front of a picture of Hitler or Mussolini.
As I say, a gut feeling (and I'm sure there are exceptions).
- treating people differently on grounds of race or sex
- economic protectionism
- be deeply socially conservative on matters such as abortion/gay marriage
- treating people the same regardless of race or sex
- the free market
- not giving two hoots what people do with their own bodies
Countdown said:
What's the difference between considering somebody to be "economically naive" or "impractically idealistic" and considering them "stupid"? To answer my own question - there isn't; the first two are just politer terms for "stupid" it's just meant to imply that those on the "Right" are somehow more pleasant chaps.....
If people who have power and are clearly not stupid don't agree with left wing ideas, the proponents of those ideas tend to think that they are wicked and motivated by self interest and callousness. If the same sort of people don't agree with right wing ideas, the proponents of those ideas tend to think that they are naïve or idealistic.If those people don't have power, they're considered by the disagreeing left to be too thick to see where their self interest lies, and by the disagreeing right to be envious and grasping.
Emily Thornberry sneering at white van man. From the other side, right wingers criticising "luvvies for Labour".
It's really not about the right being "nicer", it's about the fundamental difference between "I think your way of running the country wouldn't work" and "I think your way of running the country is immoral".
Johnnytheboy said:
As far as I am concerned my centre right politics have zero to do with far right politics as in most senses my opinions are diametrically opposed. To me someone who is classically "far right" will believe in:
This is the difference between (small c)onservatism - the first set of bulletpoints - and (small l)iberalism - the bottom set. The modern (big C)onservative Party is generally liberal. Neoliberal, to be precise, and has been since the days of Margaret Thatcher, although in recent years it has taken a bit of a lurch in the 'north east' direction on the political compass. You don't see many genuinely conservative political parties in the UK. To the right of the Conservatives you have reactionary parties like UKIP, but you have to go to the likes of the BDP and English Democrats to find a properly conservative (economically and socially) party in modern British politics. - treating people differently on grounds of race or sex
- economic protectionism
- be deeply socially conservative on matters such as abortion/gay marriage
- treating people the same regardless of race or sex
- the free market
- not giving two hoots what people do with their own bodies
otolith said:
It's really not about the right being "nicer", it's about the fundamental difference between "I think your way of running the country wouldn't work" and "I think your way of running the country is immoral".
But this is all a matter of perspective. As a leftie I think capitalism is fundamentally immoral (and, on the other side, communism is both fractally awful in its theory and horrific in all the attempts at its implementation that have been tried) and I don't think it works - as in, I don't believe it works in the way that its supporters claim it does. By its own terms, as a means to preserve private property and channel wealth upwards to an increasingly select few at the expense of all other considerations, even the system's own long-term preservation, it works brilliantly. Those on the right can be equally certain that various forms of left-wing governance are both immoral ('why should the state interfere?/What right do you have to my hard-earned money?/Why should some be held back for the supposed betterment of others?') and wouldn't work ([insert large list of examples of failed socialist/communist states here]).
It's extremely reductive to claim that 'the right thing the left are naive but the left think the right are immoral.' Both pretty much think the same of each other. There is plenty of moral outrage and smugness about practicalities in both directions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff