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).
@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…)
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. …
> _“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.
