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. …
“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.
…
“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.
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?
@tripu I will not go into the depths of this here, but I’ll leave you with science from this article & study:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/science/gender-identity/science-proves-trans-people-arent-making-it-up/
> 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.