World News Thread

[yovargas]

Okay, I do stand corrected, but it looks as if it has been quite a recent shift.

Sure, as a reaction to Trump. Who himself came about, in some significant part I believe (though certainly not the only reason), as a reaction to the rise of (for lack of a better term) "woke" culture. What will be the reaction to the reaction of the reaction?

[Inanna]

Believe me, Yov, there is no pc-culture in India (which, imo, would actually benefit from some infusion of it). So, it does not explain the rise of the far right in India.

However, it is true that when minorities/people not in power are able to make their voice heard, and it causes a reckoning for the majority’s/powerful’s pathetic, discriminatory ways, they *will* try and suppress the new voices.

And when the economy does not lead to jobs for everyone, political parties need scapegoats. Immigrants, minorities, women who now work, are those scapegoats.

[Frelga]

Yov, what you just said is that this is the reaction to people other than white straight Christian males demanding to be treated as fully human. Which is accurate but has nothing to do with right and left as traditionally portrayed in American media.

The problem is that economic and therefore political power is concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of people, and that number is getting smaller. Rather than keep the masses quiet in the traditional bread and circus fashion, they opted for the equally traditional tactic of blaming the problems caused largely by them on the minorities.

You've seen Fiddler on the Roof, right?

Edit: or, what Inanna said.

[RoseMorninStar]

Yov, what you just said is that this is the reaction to people other than white straight Christian males demanding to be treated as fully human. Which is accurate but has nothing to do with right and left as traditionally portrayed in American media.

I agree Frelga. I think the reaction (support) of Trump came about (in part) as a reaction to having a black president who was seen as illegitimate (by some) by virtue of the color of his skin as evidenced by the irrational birther movement. The rise of reaction to 'other' possibly 'taking away' any power from the white majority.

Like I said, I see it as a rising reaction to the rise of modern progressive values. (As my Trump supporting sister said during the last election, "I don't like Trump but pc culture has gone to far.") The rise of this brand of leftism led to a rise of the Trump-style of far right values. Which has led to the left getting more far left, which will lead to the right getting more right, which will lead to.....on and on and on.

I've been pondering this. The 'pc culture/rise of modern progressive values' and reaction to it is not a new one. This is a similar argument used for maintaining slavery/the emancipation of slaves, which we fought a horribly bloody war over. This is a similar argument used for women's right to vote, to work, to have National parks, and most other progressive change. While I will agree that some take 'pc culture' too far, for the most part what people desire is to be treated with respect and equality, and some of those who currently have it don't want others to have what they do because they feel it diminishes their privilege. It's the difference (and I don't mean this as a left/right, Democrat/Republican thing) between people who feel that it elevates us all to give another a hand-up and those who feel they need to keep others down in order to elevate themselves.

I don't see the denial of science, the rejection of education, etc.. as a reaction to 'pc culture' as much as I see it as a desire to control a (preferentially) ignorant people who are easier to manipulate, sadly, often through religion. They view science/facts as a threat to their control.

[yovargas]

Yov, what you just said is that this is the reaction to people other than white straight Christian males demanding to be treated as fully human. Which is accurate but has nothing to do with right and left as traditionally portrayed in American media.

You don't think movements like Black Lives Matter and MeToo are by and large leftist movements?

[Frelga]

What is your definition of "left"?

[yovargas]

It's kinda circular but political identification kind of is:
A leftist idea is one that is much more likely to be supported by people on the left, then by people on the right. Or in short, whatever (in the US) Democrats say it is.

The same applies for the right, of course. EG, Free trade is an idea of the right, until Republicans decide it's not, and then it isn't.

But putting that notion aside, social justice movements are almost always "progressive" movements, and the progressives are the left. Those who oppose social justice movements are almost always "conservatives", and conservatives are on the right.

[Frelga]

It is kinda circular, yeah.

[yovargas]

I think a lot of it is fairly arbitrary. The whole party system is so much like sports teams, turning so much of politics into a ridiculous game. A game that just happens to profoundly affect the lives of all humans.

That said, it's not entirely arbitrary and like I said, movements that are focused around attempting to address perceived social injustices, specially in minority groups, is going to almost always be considered a movement of the left. The right are more concerned with maintaining the traditional values of society, as they're more concerned with stability and security than the left usually is, and as such are resistant to demands in changes to social norms, whether it be women voting in the US 100 years ago, or transgender people, uh, existing today.

[RoseMorninStar]

I think a lot of it is fairly arbitrary. The whole party system is so much like sports teams, turning so much of politics into a ridiculous game. A game that just happens to profoundly affect the lives of all humans.

Sadly, I think this is too true.

[Frelga]

#wellactually
The traditional way of thinking about political left and right is in relation to property. On this scale, the right side advocates amassing property in individual hands, all the way up to considering all taxes to be illegal (although hardly anyone refuses to use taxpayer-funded services such as highways). The left side advocates some form of redistribution for common good, all the way up to holding all property in common (although hardly anyone is interested in picking their clothes from the communal pile).

On that scale, both American parties live way over to the right. Most Democrats support only extremely modest forms of redistribution, such as funding health care, which the majority of the world takes for granted.

Social justice issues exist on a different axis. It is probably true that racism etc. live more comfortably on the right side, if only because of the history of treating people as property. It is also true that social justice causes tend toward the left, because redistribution for the sake of a more fair world benefits the traditionally dispossessed groups. But that's not a given on the individual level.

It's why it's possible for (some) white men to support fairly leftist, for the US, proposals such as free healthcare and college while being complete racist and misogynistic pricks. And it is possible for someone to resist any enforced redistribution while voluntarily donating large portions of their personal property for the benefit of others.

And that brings me to my thesis upthread.

[yovargas]

#wellactually
The traditional way of thinking about political left and right is in relation to property.

Oh, I definitely don't think that's true. Maybe that's how it's viewed outside the US? But at least here, literally every subject for which their can be a political disagreement gets counted as left vs right. Probably a consequence of our stupid two party system.

It's why it's possible for (some) white men to support fairly leftist, for the US, proposals such as free healthcare and college while being complete racist and misogynistic pricks.

And yet in the US, people who support single payer healthcare also overwhelmingly oppose Trump's immigration policies and are overall very pro-choice; and that the people who hated Obamacare also strongly support strong, strict border policies and are much more likely to oppose legalized abortions.

[Inanna]

#wellactually
The traditional way of thinking about political left and right is in relation to property. On this scale, the right side advocates amassing property in individual hands, all the way up to considering all taxes to be illegal (although hardly anyone refuses to use taxpayer-funded services such as highways). The left side advocates some form of redistribution for common good, all the way up to holding all property in common (although hardly anyone is interested in picking their clothes from the communal pile).

On that scale, both American parties live way over to the right. Most Democrats support only extremely modest forms of redistribution, such as funding health care, which the majority of the world takes for granted.

Social justice issues exist on a different axis. It is probably true that racism etc. live more comfortably on the right side, if only because of the history of treating people as property. It is also true that social justice causes tend toward the left, because redistribution for the sake of a more fair world benefits the traditionally dispossessed groups. But that's not a given on the individual level.

It's why it's possible for (some) white men to support fairly leftist, for the US, proposals such as free healthcare and college while being complete racist and misogynistic pricks. And it is possible for someone to resist any enforced redistribution while voluntarily donating large portions of their personal property for the benefit of others.

And that brings me to my thesis upthread.

What a post. I love you, Frelga .

[RoseMorninStar]

#wellactually
The traditional way of thinking about political left and right is in relation to property.
(...)

And that brings me to my thesis upthread.

What a post. I love you, Frelga .

I agree.

[Frelga]

#wellactually
The traditional way of thinking about political left and right is in relation to property.

Oh, I definitely don't think that's true. Maybe that's how it's viewed outside the US? But at least here, literally every subject for which their can be a political disagreement gets counted as left vs right. Probably a consequence of our stupid two party system.

In the US, "left" and "socialist" are used as slurs regardless of actual meaning. Similar to another word that is not often used to mean "lighthearted and carefree."

But we are having a Serious Discussion here and we can't do it unless we agree on what words mean.

[yovargas]

Are you saying that you don't view the recent rise of populist and nationalist movements as "far right" movements? Because if so, I definitely think you are in the distinct minority in that view.

[Frelga]

Two points.

One: alt-right and similar terms have been self-applied by those who have openly stated that Nazi just does not sound cool anymore.

Two: aside from that, yes, those movements cluster on far right. It's still about property.

To restate my thesis upthread,

The problem is that economic and therefore political power is concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of people, and that number is getting smaller. Rather than keep the masses quiet in the traditional bread and circus fashion, they opted for the equally traditional tactic of blaming the problems caused largely by them on the minorities.

[Túrin Turambar]

It's why it's possible for (some) white men to support fairly leftist, for the US, proposals such as free healthcare and college while being complete racist and misogynistic pricks.

And yet in the US, people who support single payer healthcare also overwhelmingly oppose Trump's immigration policies and are overall very pro-choice; and that the people who hated Obamacare also strongly support strong, strict border policies and are much more likely to oppose legalized abortions.

Once certain policies become associated with certain parties/ideological positions, people who like those policies naturally gravitate towards those parties and then adopt the rest of their platform. Every now and again a position changes (e.g. free trade) and a lot of the erstwhile supporters change with it.

[yovargas]

Two: aside from that, yes, those movements cluster on far right. It's still about property.

To restate my thesis upthread,

The problem is that economic and therefore political power is concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of people, and that number is getting smaller. Rather than keep the masses quiet in the traditional bread and circus fashion, they opted for the equally traditional tactic of blaming the problems caused largely by them on the minorities.

Regardless of the semantics of what's left or right, I don't find this theory convincing because nothing particularly notable has happened in the recent past to trigger this. Maybe if it had happened in response to the last major global recession/depression it would make sense, but that was over 10 years ago and to my knowledge most countries recovered a good while ago. So why now?

I also don't buy theories that put the explanation of why the masses become afraid entirely on propaganda from "the powerful". I believe that kind of propaganda can only really work if the masses already feel threatened by something, and your theory doesn't address what that something is. I don't think FOX news and their ilk create fears, I think it recognizes existing fears then points them at their desired targets.

[Frelga]

It didn't "just" happen. What's happening now is the natural progression of several decades of events, both planned and not.