Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?

[98elise]

Countdown 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:

• economically naive
• motivated by impractical idealism
• at worst, motivated by envy of the successful or privileged

People in the left rarely seem to be able to understand why anyone would rationally end up being right wing and assume that they are either of:

• stupid
• evil

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.

I disagree. I would be to the right of center and I would never excuse far right extremists. I honestly don't know anyone that would.

Far left views on the other hand can get you a Labour front bench position.

[Countdown]

98elise said:

I disagree. I would be to the right of center and I would never excuse far right extremists. I honestly don't know anyone that would.

Far left views on the other hand can get you a Labour front bench position.

Ok - could you give me examples of who you consider to be

(a) A far right extremist
(b) Their equivalent on the Labour front benches

The way i read it you're considering the above two as equivalent so I'm curious as to which labour frontbencher you consider the equivalent of the EDL or Combat 18

[otolith]

2xChevrons said:

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.

"It's not fair to tax middle class people so much" is not really on the same level of moral outrage as "Tory austerity is killing disabled people" - I have never seen the level of visceral hatred for Labour that people on the Left have for the Tories. Fear, mistrust, perhaps, but if you look at what is written about IDS for example, there's nothing comparable thrown the other way. There is a sincere belief that these people are malign, vicious and fundamentally wicked. People on the right seem to think that Corbyn is a well-meaning fool. They do think McDonnell is a nasty piece of work, but to be fair, he is.

[Countdown]

Johnnytheboy said:

Funnily enough you are reading what you want to from my post.

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.

There again you're justifying one side and asserting that the entirety of the other side as one homogenous entity. The "right" is capable of understanding but the "left" isn't. And it's entirely coincidental that you consider yourself slight right of centre, because it;s not as if you're biased in any way.

Alan Sugar is left wing. There are numerous other "lefties" who are financially succesfull. Do you think they hold anybody even slightly right of centre as motivated purely by self-interest? My point being there is an entire range of views/beliefs/opinions on the "Left" just as there are on the "Right". Somebody like Anne-Marie Waters doesn't have the same views/beliefs/ opinions as somebody such as David Gauke or Amber Rudd.

The lack of self-awareness is astonishing.

[Randy Winkman]

El stovey said:

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.

Well said. I don't really like any of the people mentioned. I'd probably put Abbott marginally ahead of McDonnell and both of them way ahead of the other two but I'm not really defending any of them. So none of them really represents this "lefty".

[2xChevrons]

otolith said:

"It's not fair to tax middle class people so much" is not really on the same level of moral outrage as "Tory austerity is killing disabled people" - I have never seen the level of visceral hatred for Labour that people on the Left have for the Tories. Fear, mistrust, perhaps, but if you look at what is written about IDS for example, there's nothing comparable thrown the other way. There is a sincere belief that these people are malign, vicious and fundamentally wicked. People on the right seem to think that Corbyn is a well-meaning fool. They do think McDonnell is a nasty piece of work, but to be fair, he is.

You only have to look at the Jeremy Corbyn thread on this very forum to see that people were not just thinking "oh, that Mr. Corbyn - he means well but is foolish in his belief in social democracy. What japes!" There was some real vitiriol at times (and worse elsewhere).

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm amazed you think Tony Blair is someone 'the left' would ever consider going into bat for. I'm pretty sure he is the only person who could unify most of 'the left' and most of 'the right' in their equal loathing of the man and his work. Bad example.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 15th September 16:43

[R Mutt]

Countdown said:

98elise said:

I disagree. I would be to the right of center and I would never excuse far right extremists. I honestly don't know anyone that would.

Far left views on the other hand can get you a Labour front bench position.

Ok - could you give me examples of who you consider to be

(a) A far right extremist
(b) Their equivalent on the Labour front benches

The way i read it you're considering the above two as equivalent so I'm curious as to which labour frontbencher you consider the equivalent of the EDL or Combat 18

Isn't that the point? You don't have to be far right to be considered by millions on the left to be'dangerous', you'd simply have to shake hands (pre-COVID) with Nigel Farage. Migration control is a dangerous idea.

Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 15th September 16:51

[2xChevrons]

R Mutt said:

Isn't that the point? You don't have to be far right to be considered by millions on the left as 'dangerous', you'd simply have to shake hands (pre-COVID) with Nigel Farage. Migration control is a dangerous idea.

Corbyn wasn't 'far left', if you take the political spectrum as a whole, not just the narrow and rightwards-placed Overton Window in British politics, into account. He was pretty far to the left of the Labour Party, but by no means on its left-most edge. If he (or anyone else) was really on the far left they wouldn't even be in the Labour Party because your political beliefs would be that parliamentary democracy could never lead to socialism and that Labour were traitourous collaborators (!). Just as all the cranks, weirdos and religious nutters who now make up UKIP and the BDP are too far to the right for the Conservative Party.

If we're going purely by 'how far from the political centre are they', then John McDonnell is about as far out from the fulcrum to the left as Jacob Rees-Mogg is to the right. They're both on the outer limits of what their party's 'tent' will hold, and hold to a peculiarly outdated - if sincerely held - and rather absolutist form of their respective ideologies that is very out of step with the rest of the nation, but they're still working with their party while putting (a small amount) of pressure on its policy direction. And they're both significantly more popular with their membership than with the electorate as a whole. Both are considered 'dangerous' by their opponents. And both are happy to work within the broader party and parliamentary system - McDonnell isn't actually proposing turning Britain into a soviet socialist state and JRM won't actually try to recriminalise homosexuality, outlaw trade unions and try and reconquer Zimbabwe.

You can find outright communists/anarchists/god-knows-what to the left of McDonnell and you can find ultra-nationalists and facists to the right of Rees-Mogg.

[otolith]

2xChevrons said:

otolith said:

"It's not fair to tax middle class people so much" is not really on the same level of moral outrage as "Tory austerity is killing disabled people" - I have never seen the level of visceral hatred for Labour that people on the Left have for the Tories. Fear, mistrust, perhaps, but if you look at what is written about IDS for example, there's nothing comparable thrown the other way. There is a sincere belief that these people are malign, vicious and fundamentally wicked. People on the right seem to think that Corbyn is a well-meaning fool. They do think McDonnell is a nasty piece of work, but to be fair, he is.

You only have to look at the Jeremy Corbyn thread on this very forum to see that people were not just thinking "oh, that Mr. Corbyn - he means well but is foolish in his belief in social democracy. What japes!" There was some real vitiriol at times (and worse elsewhere).

I can't find it (did it get deleted?) - are they saying how much they hate him, or are they saying that he is an evil man?

[amusingduck]

2xChevrons said:

If we're going purely by 'how far from the political centre are they', then John McDonnell is about as far out from the fulcrum to the left as Jacob Rees-Mogg is to the right. They're both on the outer limits of what their party's 'tent' will hold, and hold to a peculiarly outdated - if sincerely held - and rather absolutist form of their respective ideologies that is very out of step with the rest of the nation, but they're still working with their party while putting (a small amount) of pressure on its policy direction.

I can see JMcD, but what is the argument for JRM holding an outdated/absolutist form of his respective ideology (which is?) and that his beliefs are very out of step with the rest of the nation?

I've very limited exposure to JRM, but each time I've seen him speak I've found nothing to object to, really. Interested to hear more

[T6 vanman]

Based on the controversy and witch hunt aimed at Nicholas Sandmann for wanting to continue his education - Remember this is a person cleared of all accusations and is now winning settlements left right and centre for defamation ( well left left left CNN & Washington post etc)
But the left are editing history and classifying him as a provocateur in training and that he has no intention of learning

Can't remember a right wing tutor or professor castigating a innocent left minded student


Oh 2xChevrons McDonnell was actually proposing turning Britain into a soviet socialist state - red book in Westminster etc

[2xChevrons]

T6 vanman said:

Oh 2xChevrons McDonnell was actually proposing turning Britain into a soviet socialist state - red book in Westminster etc

I didn't realise that throwing a copy of the Little Red Book in the House of Commons was sign language for "I think Britain should be a soviet state."? Where and when did McDonnell make this proposal? I don't think he's ever proposed soviet-style socialism even in a "if I could wave a magic wand and create my ideal society this is what I'd do..." sense, let alone presented it as actual policy.

I have the Labour 2019 manifesto on a shelf right next to the computer on which I'm typing this. Other than the colour of the cover I don't see much resemblence to the soviet system or Mao's China. It's a manifesto far to the left of anything offered the UK electorate since 1950 but it's not communism, let alone socialism. It's basically a platform for social democratic shock therapy, taking Britain in five years to the socio-economic position the Nordic countries have reached after 50-plus.

But it's not socialism. It's not even that left-wing in the grand scheme of things. It's extremely radical in its pace and scope, but the platform would be dimissed as capitalist pandering and traitorous attempts to fix the status quo by those on the actual 'far left' - the red-died equivalents of the fascists and nationalists on the right.

[A Winner Is You]

2xChevrons said:

I didn't realise that throwing a copy of the Little Red Book in the House of Commons was sign language for "I think Britain should be a soviet state."? Where and when did McDonnell make this proposal? I don't think he's ever proposed soviet-style socialism even in a "if I could wave a magic wand and create my ideal society this is what I'd do..." sense, let alone presented it as actual policy.

If it was a Tory MP waving around Mien Kampf, what would your reaction have been?

[2xChevrons]

A Winner Is You said:

If it was a Tory MP waving around Mien Kampf, what would your reaction have been?

If the context was the same? Say, a Labour government was doing a trade deal with a Trump-led USA and a Conservative MP brought out a copy of MK and quoted Hitler's thoughts on international trade to help his opponent to deal with their new trading partner?

Surprise and shock, probably. A bit like when McDonnell got out the Little Red Book. I certainly wasn't expecting that from a shadow chancellor in 2015! (It was also a stupid move because as well as giving his opponents plenty of ammo against him - not that he seems to care about that - it also complely overshadowed the point he was trying to make, but that's beside the point).

There is a difference though - the Little Red Book is just Mao's (supposed) thoughts on how a socialist revolution and communist society in China would/should operate. It is no more 'dangerous' than Marx's works in that regard. It bares zero resemblence to the horrors of Maoism as an ideology and as it was inflicted on China and its people. Mein Kampf, even divorced from its wider context, is a hate-filled, racial-supremacist, anti-semitic screed. I'm pretty sure that you couldn't quote any of Hitler's thoughts about international trade that are in it without quoting hate speech in the Commons. The Mao quote that McDonnell read out could have come from any third-rate Business Leadership self-help tome. It's a shame that Mao didn't implement his ideas as expressed in the Little Red Book (in comparison to what China got, anyway). It's a shame that Hitler got the opportunity to act out Mein Kampf for real.

[Gecko1978]

Countdown said:

98elise said:

I disagree. I would be to the right of center and I would never excuse far right extremists. I honestly don't know anyone that would.

Far left views on the other hand can get you a Labour front bench position.

Ok - could you give me examples of who you consider to be

(a) A far right extremist
(b) Their equivalent on the Labour front benches

The way i read it you're considering the above two as equivalent so I'm curious as to which labour frontbencher you consider the equivalent of the EDL or Combat 18

EDL are I assume the sort to say if you are X we are coming for you. The former labour front bench said we are putting the rich on notice we are coming for you. The RIch it turned out were those on 80k a year.

So while I don't think labour front bench have supported concentration camps I dount the EDL have said that either but they have probably indicated Muslims are not welcome just like labour made those on higher incomes not welcome.

[djohnson]

McDonnell is a deeply dangerous, ideology driven individual, a self confessed Marxist, he’s wrong but he’s not an idiot. He was prepared to say just about anything to get into power (once he got a sniff of power either he suddenly moderated the views he’d held all his life or he was putting on an act of an all round reasonable guy) and having done so would almost certainly have imposed something akin to communism on the UK. I still find it incredible that he could possibly have come so close to power in the UK. It’s not what the manifesto said that matters, the shadow manifesto would have been truly terrifying, they wouldn’t worry about breaking with the manifesto they were elected on, the hard left only need to win one election. We were likely saved since his ticket to power was a halfwit called Corbyn, who wasn’t credible as a leader and didn’t have the intellectual flexibility to deceive the electorate as to his true intent. Every man, woman and child in the UK should give thanks each day for the 2019 election result, we all (‘the many’ included) dodged a big bullet

[Biggy Stardust]

2xChevrons said:

I didn't realise that throwing a copy of the Little Red Book in the House of Commons was sign language for "I think Britain should be a soviet state."? Where and when did McDonnell make this proposal? I don't think he's ever proposed soviet-style socialism even in a "if I could wave a magic wand and create my ideal society this is what I'd do..." sense, let alone presented it as actual policy.

What about his comments that conservative politicians should be attacked on the streets & intimidated against going out in public? That doesn't seem very tolerant.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/914684/John-McDo...

"He told the Unite the Resistance rally that elected Conservative MPs should be targeted because they are “social criminals”.

Mr McDonnell added: “I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory or MP, no Coalition minister can travel anywhere in the country or show their face anywhere in public without being challenged by direct action.”

In September 2011, he said: “Any institution or any individual that attacks our class, we will come for you with direct action.”

“We will close you down, we will expose you, we’ll sit on your lawn, we’ll come into your offices, we’ll come to wherever you are to confront you,” he told the Coalition of Resistance delegates.

Mr McDonnell has also previously joked about his desire to “assassinate” Margaret Thatcher, which was captured by BBC cameras."

[T6 vanman]

Biggy Stardust said:

2xChevrons said:

I didn't realise that throwing a copy of the Little Red Book in the House of Commons was sign language for "I think Britain should be a soviet state."? Where and when did McDonnell make this proposal? I don't think he's ever proposed soviet-style socialism even in a "if I could wave a magic wand and create my ideal society this is what I'd do..." sense, let alone presented it as actual policy.

What about his comments that conservative politicians should be attacked on the streets & intimidated against going out in public? That doesn't seem very tolerant.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/914684/John-McDo...

"He told the Unite the Resistance rally that elected Conservative MPs should be targeted because they are “social criminals”.

Mr McDonnell added: “I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory or MP, no Coalition minister can travel anywhere in the country or show their face anywhere in public without being challenged by direct action.”

In September 2011, he said: “Any institution or any individual that attacks our class, we will come for you with direct action.”

“We will close you down, we will expose you, we’ll sit on your lawn, we’ll come into your offices, we’ll come to wherever you are to confront you,” he told the Coalition of Resistance delegates.

Mr McDonnell has also previously joked about his desire to “assassinate” Margaret Thatcher, which was captured by BBC cameras."

Nationalise huge swaths of publicly owned companies, squassation of privity owned assets, As Biggy highlights, The creation of an them/us environment,

Any comment on the Nicholas Sandmann situation & left wing intolerance to his attendance to collage (university) education

I've got loads more but due to coming back early from the club due to none of the usual patrons being in and me consuming a few sherbets I'd best leave for an early night

Edited by T6 vanman on Tuesday 15th September 21:23

[PeteinSQ]

T6 vanman said:

Nationalise huge swaths of publicly owned companies, squassation of privity owned assets, As Biggy highlights, The creation of an them/us environment,

Any comment on the Nicholas Sandmann situation & left wing intolerance to his attendance to collage (university) education

I've got loads more but due to coming back early from the club due to none of the usual patrons being in and me consuming a few sherbets I'd best leave for an early night

Edited by T6 vanman on Tuesday 15th September 21:23

Revisit with the spell checker once sober :-)

[R Mutt]

The number of anti Tory slogans on T shirts, graffiti, stickers, and social media regardless of what one thinks an opposing groups views are, are simply intolerance.