Elon’s Tweet
Re: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144
What is missing for context is that the Democrats are not the left. Yes, in the US, some of society is more leftist than a few years ago. OTOH, many people are also more right wing than a few years ago. Some even extreme.
The reality is that in European democracies, the Democrats would be a centrist or even conservative party. Left/progressive people are not really represented in the US. First past the post pushes people to extremes to be heard.
I think you're right about the Democratic party of the USA not being really all that left-wing by other countries' standards. However, to me, that strip illustrates something much larger: it's the radicalisation of much of the left in many countries (not just the US) and in many areas of life.
> _“Left/progressive people are not really represented in the US.”_
If you're referring to the US _Congress_, then sure: millions of Americans are to the left of the most leftist of representatives and senators.
But discussing representation _in general_, I'd say that “left/progressive people” are _overrepresented_ in the US: in [the media](https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/ratings), in art, in culture, and [in education](https://2cnzc91figkyqqeq8390pgd1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Abrams-Fig-1.jpg).
Political representation is very important, no doubt. But I think representations in fiction, bias in the news, influence in higher education, etc are very powerful, too.
I personally see approximately the same risk of “abolish[ing] human and civil rights” from both extremes of the political spectrum. It's not like progressives aren't trying to subvert certain rights, too.
By left radicalisation I mean things such as:
* Opposing #freespeech; eg the ACLU used to defend the rights of literal nazis to speak and assemble (that's what “free speech” means), but today it's busy labelling “nazi” everything they don't like. Lots of individual and institutional examples there, though.
* Trying to tear down institutions; eg calls to “defund the police”.
* Attacks on due process and presumption of innocence; eg in the context of racist or sexist accusations.
* Cancellations and smear campaigns.
* Racism, xenophobia, sexism (against groups seen as privileged or oppressors).
* Hostility towards science; eg in the context of trans rights.
* Cultural relativism and embrace of inherited or collective guilt; eg fixation on past injustices in free societies instead of current ones in oppressive regimes.
@tripu Oh wow, where to start…
None of these things are radical.
Hatespeech is not covered by “free speech”. People are still allowed to say what they want, especially in the US.
“Defund the police” refers to putting funds from the police into crisis intervention teams and making sure that there is more funding for civil support. Look at US vs. European police budgets, it is out of whack.
“Attacks on due process and presumption of innocence” happens in society generally, also on the right. …
“Cancellations and smear campaigns.” same.
“ Racism, xenophobia, sexism (against groups seen as privileged or oppressors).” Really? Reverse racism? I thought better of you.
“Hostility towards science; eg in the context of trans rights.” Trans rights are human rights. There is no discussion about that, and there is consensus in science and biology.
…
“Cultural relativism and embrace of inherited or collective guilt; eg fixation on past injustices in free societies instead of current ones in oppressive regimes.” Learning from the past is super important. Trust me, I’m German. In carry the weight and responsibility for my ancestors with me. It allows me to evaluate the current going ons in context. That is all that what the “radical left” wants.
…
Sorry that you think that people insisting on decency and human rights are the problem instead of literal people undermining democracy and limiting human rights. I hope the best for you.
One last comment, at the meta level.
What surely does _not_ help in the political debate, regardless of ideologies, is presuming malevolence in those who simply hold different views, and being contemptuous with them.
> _“Really? […] I thought better of you.”_
> _“Sorry that you think that people insisting on decency and human rights are the problem instead of literal people undermining democracy and limiting human rights. I hope the best for you.”_
_Of course_ I do not think “people insisting on decency and human rights are the problem”, and _of course_ I am against “people undermining democracy and limiting human rights”.
You know me IRL, at least a little bit. You know I'm not a nasty person or a psychopath. You should assume I hold certain views not because of hatred or sadism, but simply because I interpret things differently than you and am persuaded by a different set of arguments — _while pursuing the same benevolent goals as you_.
Principle of charity. Don't assume malice. Otherwise, there's no hope of understanding each other and making progress.
@tripu There is only so much in the way of understanding. Putting the “radical” label on one particular set of people and their opinions and saying they go further than people who are up in arms in actual violence is not an agreeable “both sides” standpoint for me.
This is the slippery slope we know to well from history.
I never called you any names. I don’t assume malice. I non the less think you’re wrong and the impact of your opinions are damaging for people, even if you don’t intent malice
> _“Putting the ‘radical’ label on one particular set of people and their opinions and saying they go further than people who are up in arms in actual violence is not an agreeable ‘both sides’ standpoint for me.”_
I absolutely agree. Violence is the worst. I do not equate radical ideas with violent actions.
When did I say, or even imply, otherwise?
> _“I don’t assume malice.”_
You said that I “think that people insisting on decency and human rights are the problem”. You have to agree with me that only someone who is either _evil_ or _stupid_ would think that. You were implying either malice or idiocy.
> _“I non the less think you're wrong and the impact of your opinions are damaging for people, even if you don’t intent malice.”_
Again: of course. That's why we have a debate. How could we hold different views if were didn't both think that the other one is wrong and that the impact of their opinions is damaging?
@tripu (I also think you vastly underestimate how “radical” per your definition I am.)
> _“Learning from the past is super important. [I] carry the weight and responsibility for my ancestors with me.”_
Absolutely yes to the first sentence. But I disagree about any kind of “weight”, “responsibility”, “guilt”, “merit” or “pride” for events about which one had _literally zero control when they happened_.
Our legal systems put no blame whatsoever on the unwitting children or spouse of the most vicious serial killer imaginable — for good reasons.
Of course we agree that someone who inherited stolen goods should return them to the victims, or compensate them or their descendants in some other way, when the people involved can be identified and the events are clear and recent enough. My criticism is that some on the left conflate that idea of justice with a kind of indelible collective guilt, and become delusional or cynical about the many merits of our liberal democracies vis a vis other retrograde cultures and regimes in the world.
> _“Learning from the past, […] carry[ing] the weight and responsibility for [one's] ancestors, […] evaluat[ing] the current going ons in context […] is all that what the ‘radical left’ wants.”_
Those are all laudable goals, but the radical left goes beyond that, and you know it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your own country, the Left Party proposed to withdraw _all_ troops from foreign countries, and to ban exports of _all_ weapons — no matter how pressing the crisis, how just the war, or how much weak nations implore powerful countries to jump in their defence.
@tripu Just to the last point: Yes, and that is why they have no political power in Germany. And many of their own members disagree. It’s an opinion. It is not something that many agree with. But they are still not attacking people in the streets over it. Not radical. Just free speech.
@tripu And yes, I don’t feel blamed, I feel responsible to not have this happen again.
That is why I have this conversation with you.
> _“That is why they have no political power in Germany.”_
What do you mean? _Die Linke_ had 9% of the vote in the last federal election, now holds 8% of representation in the state parliaments, 5% in the federal parliament, and the presidency of the _Bundesrat_ — and they receive public money and airtime during elections in proportion.
I'm not German, I don't live in Germany, I don't speak German and I don't even follow German news… and even _I_ know of some radical proposals from the left in Germany — about housing, energy and defence, for example. I know that The Left was part of the coalition of parties that implemented rent control laws in Berlin _so radical_ that they were actually _unconstitutional_.
I know of many similar developments in the US. In my own country, Catalonia and Barcelona followed a similar path: they legislated so radically in favour of squatters and against landlords that our Constitutional Court had to intervene to annul those laws.
Of course the radical left has power in Germany. And elsewhere.
> _“Many of their own members disagree. […] It is not something that many agree with.”_
Of course. So what? How could it be otherwise? Name me one large institution or organisation that is absolutely monolithic in its ideas or its policies.
The proposals I criticised (withdraw all troops from all countries, and ban exports of all weapons) are the official programe of the party. And for all we know, almost one out of every ten voters in Germany supported that.
Many people disagree with that, even within the left… _precisely because it is a radical position_.
> _“It’s an opinion. [ …] They are still not attacking people in the streets over it. Not radical. Just free speech.”_
Again: of course it's an opinion. I thought we were discussing opinions here: good and bad, left and right, moderate and extreme. So what?
I suspect you're somehow equating “radical” with “violent”. But that's not what that cartoon implied, nor the idea that I defended (ie, that much of the left has radicalised in many countries and in many areas of life). The cartoon shows “my fellow liberal” running further to the left, and becoming a “woke progressive” who exclaims “bigot!” — not someone _being violent_.
You don't need someone to become _physically violent_ in order to declare their political ideas extreme or radical.
“Reverse racism” makes no sense to me. What you may call “positive discrimination” I call simply “racism”. I'm against racism and sexism, of any sort.
I denounced “racism, xenophobia, sexism (against groups seen as privileged or oppressors)” — such as giving “priority [to] Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses [and] women-owned businesses” to receive economic relief for covid. That's racist and sexist, as per most dictionary definitions. You may disagree with me, but don't feign surprise because many people find those measures “racist” and so are against them.
There is _a lot_ of discussion about “trans rights”, and for some on the left the scientific consensus about what “sex” is, and the social norms by which we usually determine who's a “man” and who's a “woman” constitute anathema. I'm sure you know that.
Wikipedia:
> _“Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male gametes or female ones. […] A living thing's sex is determined by its genes.”_
You know that some (many?) on the left fiercely contest that bland definition of “sex”.
About the bad ideas or currents you say are coming from the right, too (“attacks on due process and presumption of innocence”, “cancellations and smear campaigns”): I'm glad we agree on that. I never said the radical left is worse or more dangerous than the radical right.
By admitting that these symptoms appear on _both_ sides of the political spectrum you kind of validate my initial point; ie, that the left has radicalised. That's the claim that started our little debate. I guess now we simply disagree about _how much_, or about how influential/worrying that radical strand of the left is.
@tripu I will not go into the depths of this here, but I’ll leave you with science from this article & study:
> A trans woman has significantly different brain movement than a cis man, despite having the same biological sex. Moreover, trans men and trans women were different from each other, implying that the brain shows a wide range of gender based differences, rather than simply male or female.
I don't have a problem with this. Of course “trans people aren't making it up”. Gender dysphoria is a thing.
Again: when did I say, or even imply, otherwise?
> _“None of these things are radical.”_
At least some of the ideas or proposals I mentioned are “radical”, in the sense that they're supported by a minority of people on the left (fortunately, I'd say), in the sense that they're further to the left of “the left”… don't you think?
> _“People are still allowed to say what they want.”_
In the narrow legal sense of “allowed”, yes. Culturally, not so much.
You may argue that growing intolerance towards abhorrent views is a good thing (ie, that it's good that people pay a social price for being bigots). But I see some dangers in the current trend:
* The definition of “bigot” is so contingent, that factions are using it to intimidate or denounce bona fide dissidents.
* We may be about to discover that private entities (eg, Twitter), while not being legally bound by “free speech”, have become nonetheless so influential and unavoidable that _some_ regulation to ensure free speech on those platform is needed.
* Mobs on social media are so quick to react and so vicious, and their punch carries so much weight, that sometimes “of course you have free speech; you're just paying the social price of being a moron” isn't a moral justification for destroyed careers and reputations.
* Some on the left are _actually_ advocating to _restrict_ free speech.
> _“Hatespeech is not covered by ‘free speech’.”_
I don't believe in “hate speech”. (I know “hate speech” is a thing, legally — I oppose those provisions.) Hate, contempt and rage are valid sentiments, sometimes. We can't define “hate speech” on the basis of who's being “hated”, or on the feelings of those who feel “hated”.
As for truly hateful idiots, I simply don't understand why we would want idiots to conceal their idiocy; it's much healthier for society to have it on display.
Actual violence, or credible threats of violence, are the only red lines for me. “Hate speech” is defined too broadly, and it's being used to silence some people.
> _“‘Defund the police’ refers to putting funds from the police into crisis intervention teams and making sure that there is more funding for civil support.”_
For some people, “defund the police” means _literally that_. I'm glad that you support the more moderate interpretation of the slogan instead — let's unite in criticising those who want to abolish police forces or rebuild them from scratch.
If “[doing] an insurrection on the capitol” is your measure of radicalisation (and I agree that's a good one), then the lawlessness, violence and vandalism for months in Portland, Oregon and in Seattle, Washington, and similar incidents in other US cities, surely is an indication of radicalisation in a significant part of the left, and of complacency of many others on the left who failed to condemn those radicals unequivocally from day one.
@tripu I specifically referred to political representation. Media representation does not matter when the other, radical side having the power to abolish human and civil rights.
(Also I wonder what you mean by ”left radicalization”? Asking for healthcare? It’s not like they did an insurrection on the capitol…)