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.
…
> _“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.
> _“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.
