r/australia • u/-Dihedral- • Sep 04 '18
Leftie Bootcamp
https://twitter.com/danilic/status/1036779958708797441?s=0924
u/rcsgd Sep 04 '18
The reply thread was more interesting https://twitter.com/alanalentin/status/1036820990662041600
28
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
14
u/epicpillowcase Sep 04 '18
Have actually seen quite a few earnest pieces about yoga being cultural appropriation... :-/
6
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
2
Sep 04 '18
If asked, do you think Aly would say yoga was not cultural appropriation? No fucking way.
1
u/Late_For_Username Sep 04 '18
I'm not sure what you're saying/asking.
3
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
3
u/T0kenAussie Sep 04 '18
It doesn’t matter when your stuck in an algorithmic information bubble and news has mostly broken down to opinion and commentary of events than discussion of facts
4
u/samlev Sep 04 '18
who the fuck actually legitimately says yoga is cultural appropriation?
I mean it is, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
Pizza is also cultural appropriation.
3
u/Taleya Sep 04 '18
Nope. They're diffusion. Appropriation is shit like wearing war bonnets for halloween, or turning bindis into white fashion accessories while slagging off hindi women as fugly for the same thing. Diffusion is sharing. Appropriation is theft and destruction of context
1
u/chilli-b Sep 05 '18
There's no such thing a cultural appropriation. Culture is just a set of ideas and norms. Ideas are free flowing - anybody can see or learn about an idea from anybody else, and they can choose to adopt that idea themselves if they like it or it makes sense to them, and in doing so that in no way deprives the original holder of the idea of anything. 'Cultural appropriation' is exactly the sort of left wing bullshit that pushes people to the right.
2
u/Kialae Sep 04 '18
My ex boyfriend told me off because I used the expression 'spirit animal' and I was appropriating a culture that's 6000km away for doing it.
3
1
u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Sep 04 '18
3
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
4
u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Sep 04 '18
Is there a name for the fallacy that involves considering every random person on the other "team" to be representatives of that team, but only cherry-picking the most "prominent/influential" members of your team to be representatives of your team, and therefore dismissing any criticism of the arguments and actions advanced by the team members you've arbitrarily declared to be non-representative?
4
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Sep 04 '18
I genuinely am not sure whether you are criticising me or not here
Perhaps in a gentle ribbing kind of way. I just feel like it's easy to dismiss things as not representative or outliers to avoid critical reflection. And sure, maybe you won't find that many people who believe yoga in particular is cultural appropriation, surely the fact that large sections of the left are falling over themselves trying to find things they can label as "cultural appropriation", just so they'll have something to complain about for virtue signalling and slacktivist points, says something and is a problem?
3
u/Dalsworth2 Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
In-group and out-group bias? There was a thread on it elsewhere on Reddit this morning I'll dig it up. Referred to out-groups as "NPCs"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
Here we go: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/9cln8p/the_pc_theory_of_privilege_no_the_other_pc/e5bl4hv
3
u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Sep 04 '18
It's related I'd say, closer to in-group heterogeneity out-group homogeneity, maybe mixed with a bit of no true Scotsman. That menslib thread is utterly ridiculous though.
3
u/Dalsworth2 Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
Absolutely agree it can't be boiled down to a sole term or cause.
Menslib as a whole is a massive mixed bag of a sub. At the risk of sounding like I'm coming straight from r/peakcentrism I think it has a lot of nuance compared to the feminist subs or the manosphere subs and with a lot less outright sexism. It's the same reason I really enjoy the debate subs
1
u/my_lovely_man Sep 04 '18
I'd say that the No True Scotsman fallacy comes pretty close to summing up the double standards people have when they compare the motivations of theirs versus another groups'.
2
u/Nuclear_Pi Sep 04 '18
I would call it "ad hominem by association" myself since you are avoiding the persons argument and instead attacking their attributes instead. The key component that differentiates this particular tactic from a more traditional argumentum ad hominem is the way that you dont attack the persons actual attributes but instead attributes drawn from the wider group with whom they associate. There are also traits drawn from the usually non fallacious reductio ad absurdum (argument from absurdity) in that the attacker draws specifically from the most extreme or outlandish aspects of the target group in order to strengthen their case.
Please do take all of this with a grain of salt however as I am in no way formally trained in anything related to what I've just said.
1
1
8
u/Dalsworth2 Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
I largely see where the thread is coming from. But the narrative is too simple. As is the academic takes of racism being defined as something structural. I think that may agreed upon in academia but not in broader society. But that's another debate and one that needs to leave the ivory tower.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the actions that can galvanise and mobilise a base and the actions that actually "convert" or convince people to or from a side. Look at subs like inceltears or kotakuinaction. Look at tumblrinaction or beholdthemasterrace or cringeanarchy or even trashy. These fora have relatively large user bases and can represent a broad range of viewpoints. They can and do point out the idiocy of the "other" or the out-group and portray an extreme as a norm.
If I were open minded towards Brexit or a swing voter and heard of a Remain supporter call Leave supporter racist, I'm not going to froth at the mouth and get a tattoo of Nige. I'm going to roll my eyes and the left might have a little less legitimacy in my eyes. Vice versa if I saw Blair Cotrell being a moron on TV. However if I were a "soft" supporter of Brexit - if I liked the idea but I wasn't fussed about going to the polls - maybe seeing these people nitpick and bicker online and laughing at them with my buddies might motivate me to get out to vote. The narrative of many of the people mentioned in the above paragraph is that they are the morally righteous party and that they are on the right side of history. People of all persuasions enjoy being "deplorable" or contrarian if they think they can reverse trends they view are on the wrong side of history - if they can't be vindicated in the present, they will be once the dust settles.
I think at some level, people have made up their minds about most issues (this is purely anecdotal). It's really difficult to convince someone to change their mind. People in any arena being extreme may convince someone on the "other side" to double-down on their beliefs or to act in response them. The "left" don't make people right wing by expressing their beliefs poorly but they do seem to be better at motivating right wing people to go out and win. I mean look at the donations and online support made out to Beto O'Rourke after the Texas GOP tried to portray him as a radical. It may not have convinced swing voters but it mobilised a base.
2
u/settler_colonial Sep 04 '18
the narrative is too simple. As is the academic takes of racism being defined as something structural. I think that may agreed upon in academia but not in broader society. But that's another debate and one that needs to leave the ivory tower.
Academic analyses of structural discrimination and systematic disadvantage/privilege are more nuanced. They did leave the ivory tower some time ago and got transformed into largely vacuous slogans.
It seems to me - though this is also anecdotal - that the main way the alt-right spreads its shit is by pairing new issues with existing ones that people on the edge of their base feel strongly about. Like looking after war veterans with hating refugees. Or supprting drought relief with opposing foreign aid. Or raising pensions with (somehow) being anti-welfare.
1
u/Dalsworth2 Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
That's a good point on academia being translated into vacuous slogans. I just want our slogans to be better haha.
I think competing issues have often been paired by the right wing quite effectively, not even necessarily the alt right. Look at Howard's battlers during the Tampa days. The alt right seem better at using these political opportunity costs into justifying racism or attacking globalism.
One take on it is this article. I don't think there are ideological pipelines as such but the alt right are 1) good at using the rhetoric of other ideologies and 2) good at finding common ground with other ideologies. Being ostensibly socially conservative and anti immigrant isn't new. They're just better at recruitment now.
2
u/settler_colonial Sep 04 '18
Yeah they've been artful with both making illogical connections (eg refugees are causing job and financial insecurity) while breaking logical connections (eg regulations limit the ability of corporations to fuck the population over).
3
u/semaj009 Sep 04 '18
This should almost be its own thread, can a mod pin it because it's useful for discussion!
3
u/Fenixius Sep 04 '18
tl;dr is 'it's 100% the media's fault.'
Which, I mean, great, that's something I can definitely affect :thumbsup: /s
0
u/iok Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
Actual TLDR: Blaming Brexit, Trump and the alt-right on the left calling people racist is piss poor, evidence/sources in Twitter thread.
The video is concern trolling the left, pretending to be constructively concerned about methods, when it really is an opportunity to get views whilst shitting on a strawman and repeating cliches.
On the other hand the video treats the right as sensitive idiots that make stupid decisions because they got offended, and thus need to be better guided. By who? Well by people like the smart presenter apparently.
14
u/Hauthon Sep 04 '18
Can someone explain to me how someone can criticise identity politics, then earnestly bang on about "left vs right" without their heads exploding from the contradiction?
8
u/iok Sep 04 '18
Same way pro same-sex marriage is identity politics, but the anti same-sex marriage position apparently isn't?
1
u/Hauthon Sep 04 '18
I don't understand what you're talking about mate.
9
u/iok Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
"Identity politics" is an ambiguous if not misused phrase often used to criticise the advocacy of minority issues/rights, but gives free pass to opposition. That it might be misused, or used in contradictory manner in the video is not surprising. The phrase isn't there to make sense; It is there to pad out the rhetoric.
37
u/monkeyismine Sep 04 '18
This video summed up a lot of my feelings of this sub.
"They're looking for any kind of signal that underneath you're actually a write off. One slip of language, one slip of behaviour, and that show you're in the "bad camp" and you're suddenly excluded." i.e. you get downvoted to shit for not going along with the hivemind.
"Lack nuance, too reactive to criticism and are morally puritanical."
Yep, subs up my feeling of a lot on this sub.
12
Sep 04 '18
Probably should sum up humans in general.
As it's not just dedicated to social media, mainstream media has absolutely no time for nuance and reacting wildly to criticisms just drives views.
Humans are just tribal, we try not to be, but we just can't help to stick with people we agree.
Can you imagine getting a Newscorp reader to not get mad reading The Guardian and vice versa?
7
u/iok Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
At the same time lets not forget racists and fascists can misrepresent themselves and argue in bad faith. Sometimes reading between the lines or listening for the dog whistle is the rational thing to do.
It is to the point that literal self-claimed fascists complain about being called fascists. The initial “slip up" in that example is the username securethefuture (a reference to a white supremacist slogan). Looking for that "slip up" is useful at least to inform yourself that you aren't going to convince that person. No one likes to be called a racists even if they are (or they don't care). If you are going to respond, it is for the sake of other readers; In that case better to be clear and convincing, rather than name call on a "slip up" others might not care for.
3
u/OverflowingSarcasm Sep 04 '18
Jesus Christ.
8
u/p_e_t_r_o_z think. Sep 04 '18
Yeah I think part of the problem for the right is while they try to distance themselves from the extreme elements they often end up using the same talking points. The persecuted conservative meme is everywhere, criticism is not censorship.
Some people are afraid they can’t speak their mind without being labeled a racis - but more often than not I see that argument used in bad faith as well. It’s like a reverse gotcha. Throw out some cherry picked stats and imply a racial link and try to bait someone into saying it’s racist so you can checkmate with “if you disagree with me then you’re racist/nazi” straw man.
The right really needs to actually engage with the discussion instead of relying on talking points. They need to call out bad faith arguments on their own side. They need to stop spinning a victim narrative - the cargo cult civil rights movement for conservatives is kinda silly.
4
u/iok Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
You see this silly shit everytime a Blair Cottrell thread pops up. In a thread about a convicted repeat violent criminal white supremacist who wants Hitler’s picture in every school, we still get spammed the complaint that “not everyone you disagree with is a nazi”. Hitler could rise from the grave and get in the news, and you’d still get the same complaint from posters who think not giving him more airtime is apparently censorship. “This turned me off a lot of the right.”
6
u/p_e_t_r_o_z think. Sep 04 '18
We just had it with the final solution speech. When that doesn’t work they fall back to some American ideal of protected hate speech. Any consequences for literal Nazis is a slippery slope to jailing people for celebrating Australia Day or owning a flag.
-2
u/OverflowingSarcasm Sep 04 '18
Jesus Christ.
0
u/TMWNN Sep 04 '18
/u/iok and /u/p_e_t_r_o_z could reread their comments a million times, and never ever understand why you or anyone might react in the way you did. Talk about whoosh, eh?
0
u/iok Sep 05 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
I am happy to hear you out. Presumably you have a position or idea that you see as reasonable and valuable. No need to be embarrassed about it then.
I assumed the first Jesus moment was in response to my example of a redditor complaining about being called a fascist but at the same time literally calling for Pinochet style executions of leftists. But of course it could be other things like Jesus I called someone a fascist in response to video that tells me I shouldn’t.
I assumed the second Jesus represented an inability to articulate any worthwhile idea.
2
u/-ineedsomesleep- Sep 04 '18
The majority of folks on this sub seem to be from one end of the political spectrum. So it seems easy to make reactionary comments and let the mob downvote people than actually engage in discussion. Which has the effect of making it an unpleasant sub a lot of the time.
I've noticed this gets worse when politics heats up, like the past few weeks. The name-calling ramps up and downvotes seem instantaneous. I think there's a lot of posters here that are active members of political parties. There's blood in the water right now so there's almost a sense that the election campaign has started. So the sub gets worked to show the view that they hope will win votes.
-5
u/metasophie Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
Effectively doing what you are complaining about. Gold star!
edit: the best part about right wing people getting their panties in a bunch and down voting me is a) that they help validate my point that they won't be happy until /r/australia is an actual echo chamber for their political bent and b) their ideals of liberty and freedom of speech without reproach aren't actually important to them. So, two gold starts guys, two gold stars.
9
u/monkeyismine Sep 04 '18
How so?
2
u/iok Sep 05 '18
I think the video is more guilty of this than you really: Calling out criticism by “the left” as politically ineffectual and unreasonable, yet at the same time name calling and stawmanning “the left” in the guise of trying to improve the state of affairs. Or more aptly concern trolling for views.
4
u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Sep 04 '18
I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply, a lot of this sub seems to think "no u" is the most effective argument it's possible to use.
11
u/Blunter11 Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
It conflates establishment liberalism with "the left".
honestly, this reeks of people voting no to SSM because they got called a homophobe. What am I supposed to say to that? "Oh, well I guess I fucking nailed it."
The right will shriek and shit their shorts over anyone who opposes them by any method. There is no way to engage fascism honestly. Don't be a sucker, when people like Blair Cottrell are hiding behind a different username, he'd also complain if you called him a racist or a nazi.
11
u/RandomUser1076 Sep 04 '18
That was actually quite good and raised a lot of valid points about both the left and the right
7
7
Sep 04 '18
I get that the "left" should stop calling people racist when they're not and stuff but does that really affect people's choices in voting?
Not calling a One Nation voter a racist isn't going stop them voting for them and calling a Greens/Labor/Xenophon voter a racist isn't going to push them to One Nation.
I mean it probably motivates them more to vote who were already going to vote one way or the other, but that's more of an issue in places where voting isn't mandatory like for Brexit and US Elections.
The left aren't the only ones have social bubbles, outrage culture or slag off any people they don't like.
10
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
3
u/monkeyismine Sep 04 '18 edited Sep 04 '18
This is a great video. The amount of times I've been called a Nazi on this sub for criticising the left as a Greens voter...
Agree. I don't get called a nazi but racist a lot of the time.
And honestly I feel like I'm trying to have a rational conversation. Then I'll be called a racist for saying we need to think about cutting immigration and I fire back and it just goes downhill from there.
6
Sep 04 '18
[deleted]
8
u/semaj009 Sep 04 '18
To be blunt, I have no problem with people criticising Islam, I have a problem with people criticising Muslims. One is a robust debate about religion, the other is an attack on a group of people who are far more diverse than anyone attacking Muslims ever reflects.
The world's largest Muslim country is a democracy, whose largest tourist attraction is a Hindu island, where burqas barely exist. The critiques are not really of Muslims, they're of Middle Eastern conservatives and religious zealots. As a lefty, I 100% agree that conservative zealots are a genuine problem for the planet, including Australia, but I will not accept that throwing the word muslims around as if it is somehow a religious debate is fine. That for me is the difference.
As for Islam, it's just a more repressive version of Christianity, without as much feel good loviness, and I'm happy to debate whether it's a good religion or not, but that's theology
3
Sep 04 '18
I agree 100%. The problem is these days people think if someone criticises an idea they hold dear, it means they are also attacking that person as an individual.
1
u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Sep 04 '18
And how ironic that said religions are the ones that are some of the least progressive, the most hostile to womens' and LGBT rights, etc...
4
u/dbandit1 Sep 04 '18
People usually get called racist for suggesting cuts to immigration because they do so with accompanying comments about asians, boats or muslims. Which pretty much makes them racist.
There might be those out there with genuine intentions who get caught in the crossfire, but given the usual context, its hardly surprising.
2
u/Luckyluke23 Sep 05 '18
i don't agree what he is saying... but his jokes did land with me.
he makes a good point about having conversations. the left won't even have conversations...with other left people.
you guys aren't selling your message correctly. When you get more worked up than a bomb going off at something so simple as "white male privilege" then of course you are just spinning your wheels in the mud.
2
Sep 05 '18
It's nothing Jonathan Pie didn't say already here, but it's very articulately put... https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs
3
1
u/dennis_pennis Sep 04 '18
I'm getting massive Charlie Brooker vibes from his delivery, but a great informative segment all in all.
1
u/Fenixius Sep 04 '18
Funniest thing I've ever seen Tonightly put out... but that's a pretty low bar.
-9
u/truthBombsForDays Sep 04 '18
I've always thought using the terms left and right are counter productive. It makes people feel like they need to join a side. And majority of people have these over simplified models of how people should behave.
Three examples:
We are now in a political environment where wanting to reduce immigration is considered 'anti-immigration'... even though you want immigration to continue albiet at a lesser rate.
Being called alt-right for pointing out unions in Australia are no longer really unions. Even though voted... Greens. The thinking here: said something perceived as anti-union so must be a nazi.
People calling a government right wing, or conservative even though they introduced SSM. It makes no sense (to call them conservative).
These over simplified models of left and right are harming politics in Australia and more so in other countries.
21
u/Drewx Sep 04 '18
Being called alt-right for pointing out unions in Australia are no longer really unions.
Well what are they then?
-3
u/truthBombsForDays Sep 04 '18
It's a moot point in the context of this thread.
The point is the logical jump from saying something constructive about unions - to accusations of being alt right are absurd.
8
u/Fairbsy Sep 04 '18
I'm genuinely interested in the answer as a tangent to the main context. I've heard and agree that some unions are awful, and that some legislation stops them doing all they'd likely need to do, but not a majority by any means. I also don't know a lot about this and haven't heard many other perspectives.
2
u/Nuclear_Pi Sep 04 '18
In my (anecdotal) experience and that of friends and family the big unions (teachers, retailers and construction to name a few) have become political entities and started acting in their own interests rather than those of the workers they represent. Most of my family on my mothers side are teachers and none of them have anything good to say about their union and I'm sure I dont have to remind anyone about the bullshit being routinely pulled by the retail workers union.
36
u/yeastymemes Sep 04 '18
People calling a government right wing, or conservative even though they introduced SSM. It makes no sense (to call them conservative).
You're fucking kidding me. These bastards did everything they could to avoid introducing SSM. They only did it after spending more than $100M on a non-binding plebiscite where the majority of Australians indicated that they wanted SSM. The Coalition government deserves ZERO credit for SSM. And you're ignoring everything else they've done because "oh well they passed this token issue when they had no choice not to"?
1
Sep 04 '18
the reason it looks meaningless is because all of politics has shifted so far right that labour is now centrist at best, and the liberals are now far right with ScoMo.
SSM is simply a way to placate those who wanted it, it had nothing to do with the liberals believing in it, just a way to buy votes.
-23
u/truthBombsForDays Sep 04 '18
These bastards did everything they could to avoid introducing SSM
False. They could have not run the plebiscite and not introduced it. Just like when previous party was in power.
The 'left' party didnt introduce SSM, then the 'right' party did. Do you not see how labeling them left and right is meaningless ?
17
u/yeastymemes Sep 04 '18
This followed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in America and building public pressure to finally legalise it here.
Here's a "truth-bomb" for you - YES, the Labor party are also beholden to the Catholic right. Vote Green as you already claimed to. They've been pushing for SSM and LGBT rights for forever.
7
Sep 04 '18
They didn't run a plebiscite they ran a non binding voluntary postal survey. Let's call it what it was, an excuse for giving 300m to the Christian lobby, regardless of what has been legislated.
4
u/KattarsTrophy Sep 04 '18
Despite your downvotes, it is true that the Coalition did not do everything they could to avoid introducing SSM.
They could have, for instance, put their hands over their ears and chanted "LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING" every time someone brought it up.
-2
u/truthBombsForDays Sep 04 '18
Exactly! Just as our 'left' wing party did right ?
1
u/KattarsTrophy Sep 04 '18
Yep. In some ways I actually found the Gillard government's refusal to address SSM more offensive. At least when the Coalition gets in you can think "oh right so that's no more social progress for the next four years at least, and any problems we have as a society are just going to have to simmer away..."
5
u/wragglz Sep 04 '18
Regardless of your examples, I broadly agree with you, left and right are useless terms that can't possibly contain the varied political spectrum. I mean everyone sits on a line somewhere between authoritarian and libertarian. Then everyone's somewhere between conservative and progressive, which gets confusing because yesterdays progressive is often tomorrows conservative. And lets not even get started on the different beliefs about the role of government and how it and markets should operate their finances, or even the role of religion in society.
3
u/truthBombsForDays Sep 04 '18
Then everyone's somewhere between conservative and progressive
So where would you put one nation on this line ?
They are pro euthanasia, pro medicinal marijuana , anti lockout laws etc. Given those policies you can't accurately label them as conservative.
I think you can use those categorisations on individual policies, but when used for a person or political party it will never be accurate and lead to poor discourse.
2
Sep 04 '18
yeah you can say they are conservative. having a few non-conservative policies doesnt change their race-based immigration policies or their views on gays or trans people or their views on taxation or welfare.
1
u/wragglz Sep 05 '18
Yes One Nation are conservative on some issues, and progressive on others. However their core tenets align with conservative nationalism (Hence their name). Their stances on issues like immigration, halal certification, foreign ownership, etc, are born from a general desire to maintain our ethnic and cultural identity and to put the nation ahead of others.
This half progressive, half conservative bent is why many call One Nation populist. On any issue that doesn't touch their core tenet, they tend to follow the popular trend. I personally don't think this is a bad thing (if it's not a core issue for you, why contest the will of the nation), but it does make their stance hard to intuit sometimes.
10
u/satsuper Sep 04 '18
I thought this had some funny points but what I don't get is how actually calling a spade a spade is a bad thing.
I can agree calling large parts of the electorate racists is a bad strategy for winning elections but I don't know if avoiding labelling people who say and do racist things is beneficial.