I have been maintaining and updating this blog space for over 4 years and until very recently I have been reluctant to voice my opinion and publish articles steeped in political debate, bias and rhetoric. My reluctance to enter into the political sphere is because I don’t find the tug-of war of Politics in and of itself very interesting, factual-based or educative. It’s speculative at best. However, more recently I have found myself propelled into the political debate for reasons I will explain below:
I was what one might label a progressive-leftist for over 20 years. I would probably call myself more classical liberal today even still a little left leaning in my politics. Why the move? I got very disenchanted with the left’s endless use of Social Justice Warrior rhetoric and virtue signalling; identity politics and tribal wars; and even their encroachment on free speech by de-platforming speakers and deliberately omitting factual and scientific evidence if it didn’t align with their collectivist aim. I think my disenchantment is best encapsulated publicly by the frustration and frankly ‘fear’ expressed by left leaning (or former leftists) IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) constituents Sam Harris, Eric and Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin and Jonathan Haidt.
As Eric Weinstein stated about the modern left in the Glitch in the Matrix conversation on Rebel Wisdom.
They are attaching themselves to real conversations and blowing up the conversation so that you can’t actually speak. You don’t want a single person at the table who wants to scuttle the conversation… The modern left is very often focused on scuttling any realistic conversation.
I think why I am no longer a supporter of the left is because it appears to me at least the left ‘today’ is a shadow of its previous self even that of 10 years ago. The left used to be about fighting the big social injustice issues of the world that truly needed fighting. Fortunately, the state of the world today compared to even 70 years ago is nothing short of miraculous and I think the left played a pivotal part in that socioeconomic progress. But something has changed in the last 10 years and even more so recently with their causes which has left a very sour taste in my mouth. Instead of viewing them as the great moral bastions of real inequality and injustice, I now see them playing a conniving collectivist game which is threatening what I consider the foundational core of western liberal democracy: free speech and individual expression. Any major ideology and sociopolitical value structure started out from a position of weakness in which it couldn’t enforce itself. Christianity for example used to be a persecuted religion and subsequently evolved into something that practiced persecution of other religions.
You’ll notice I didn’t mention Post-modernism nor Neo-Marxism until now although I will admit, this particular nihilistic world-view is what concerns me most about the activists stance on the left today. I speak of activists especially because they are the ones who do the leg work and / or speak out for their causes. So they essentially represent what we see of the left. These activists have been so successful in recent years, and as I alluded to already I have noticed a real encroachment on individual freedom of expression and speech. People are downright afraid and have been for quite sometime to speak out against what may be perceived as contravening the leftist collective opinion and narrative. Many have spoken out and paid a high price. I don’t think I need to go into that, but unless you’ve been living in a cocoon in recent times you’ll know that list is very long.
I could continue for hours and write page upon page about my critical observations of the left today, but I don’t have the time right now to pursue it. Except I will say that I can no longer go to the BBC news web page without being inundated with ‘not news’ but pro diversity and minority group articles trying to tell me how I should think because supposedly I have implicit biases and prejudices. As psychologist Dr Jonathan Haidt stated, ‘Implicit associations and attitudes are of course real. We can’t stop ourselves from picking up associations with the world’. But I don’t expect the BBC to push their ideological agenda down my throat by telling me how I should think. Even my beloved Australian go to news site the ABC is pushing out this stuff in bucket loads. I’m running out of places to get ‘actual’ news.
I couldn’t but help admire chartbuster’s following critique about my original post as well as some of the Reddit replies :
You’re encountering some obscurantism fyi.
This may be a third layer of meta-analysis but there is some assumptive bias, point-dodging, and exaggeration going on regarding your post. It’s not as airtight and rigorous as it could be (although it is a good read) for this particular crowd of Anarchist desperados who gravitate towards this ‘bait’ so to speak. I have no doubt certain users will find something wrong with your argument no matter what it says— if they disagree with it for any opaque or concrete reasons they will change your argument. When all else fails and they have little to say, they’ll distort the truth and strawman the living hell out of it.
Their arguments are generally so wispy thin that their only choice is to obfuscate and create pseudo-complex denialist rhetorical gotchas.
They think if they get you semantically it somehow makes the rest of your points invalid.
1. The Political Compass Test. Where do you sit on the Political Spectrum?
2. Ezra Klein, a rational or irrational lefty?
3. The Righteousness and the Woke – Why Evangelicals and Social Justice Warriors Trigger Me in the Same Way – Valerie Tariko