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.
…
“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.
> _“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.)
@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