Left-Libertarian Neo-Liberalism vs. Identity Politics and the P.C. Agenda

[Captain Adverse]

In recent threads a number of issues in the news have been raised demonstrating the increasing impact of Authoritarian-Leftist Social Justice Warriors ("SJW") pushing Identity Politics. Activities serving to sub-divide our nation into warring cultural groups; the antithesis of the melting pot ideal they pretend to be fighting for.

Some Forum members have questioned my credibility as a "Left-Libertarian" due to my opposition to the tactics employed by groups like Black Lives Matter, advocates of the "Check Your Privilege" meme, and other P.C. social justice warrior groups. That because I argue against SJW methodology I am not truly supportive of freedom of expression and therefore not true to liberal ideology.

A recent incident came up regarding "Cultural Appropriation" which can be found here:

https://youtu.be/jDlQ4H0Kdg8

I'm personally torn here, while her actions would be called a "hate crime" had it been reversed, who here hasn't wanted to punch a white kid with dreads in the face?

Doing a search for various responses to that video I found the following video that comes fairly close to how I view things. It's not very long but it does make several cogent points:



I lean somewhat left on economic issues as listed in that video, but libertarian on cultural issues. I am a neo-classical Liberal, believing that government is created by individuals to protect themselves from one another, to minimize conflicts that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. That it is necessary but should be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom while still preventing such conflicts.

So whenever I see people acting out to stifle the freedom of others, and twisting the situation to claim the moral high ground, I speak up. Situations like the woman in the video (unaware she was being recorded) who assaulted the student over his hairstyle while pretending HE started it by putting his hands on HER.

Shades of this video encounter: Trump Protester Gets Pepper Sprayed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBMWgMn52I

This is also why I haven't reacted the way SJW's expect when constantly barraging us with anti-Trump incident threads. I choose to not buy into the hype and histrionics of whatever SJW group incites a confrontation and then cry foul when they get the exact response they were hoping for. Instead I look at these incidents through a different lens, asking myself who is acting to cause the situation, rather than simply buying into the effect.

 

[Kobie]

"SJW" is a snarl word for anyone who tells right-wingers they're wrong. Sure, there are the freakshows, but the term has gotten way too commonplace to deride all liberals to be taken even remotely seriously anymore.

 

[Kobie]

I choose to not buy into the hype and histrionics of whatever SJW group incites a confrontation and then cry foul when they get the exact response they were hoping for. Instead I look at these incidents through a different lens, asking myself who is acting to cause the situation, rather than simply buying into the effect.

Walking up to someone and calling them an asshole does not excuse the actions of the person being called an asshole who chooses to respond by punching the person calling them an asshole in the face.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Walking up to someone and calling them an asshole does not excuse the actions of the person being called an asshole who chooses to respond by punching the person calling them an asshole in the face.

Hmmm, and where did you get that from in my post?

I am not even going to ask if you looked at the video(s) because you generally don't. Preferring instead to react with a response based in assumption bias to what you think is being discussed.

While I have pointed out that when you poke a hornets nest you can't blame the hornets for acting in their nature, at no time have I ever excused a violent response to a non-violent provocation. :coffeepap:

"SJW" is a snarl word for anyone who tells right-wingers they're wrong. Sure, there are the freakshows, but the term has gotten way too commonplace to deride all liberals to be taken even remotely seriously anymore.

So you say, but then you are assuming I am not a Liberal because you have appropriated the term as only applying to those you think fit the description. Again, you failed to read for comprehension, because classical liberals and neo-classical liberals are a horse of a different color from your type of liberal.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

"SJW" is a snarl word for anyone who tells right-wingers they're wrong. Sure, there are the freakshows, but the term has gotten way too commonplace to deride all liberals to be taken even remotely seriously anymore.

No, it's a term used by even left leaning people to snark at the extreme left.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

In recent threads a number of issues in the news have been raised demonstrating the increasing impact of Authoritarian-Leftist Social Justice Warriors ("SJW") pushing Identity Politics. Activities serving to sub-divide our nation into warring cultural groups; the antithesis of the melting pot ideal they pretend to be fighting for.

Some Forum members have questioned my credibility as a "Left-Libertarian" due to my opposition to the tactics employed by groups like Black Lives Matter, advocates of the "Check Your Privilege" meme, and other P.C. social justice warrior groups. That because I argue against SJW methodology I am not truly supportive of freedom of expression and therefore not true to liberal ideology.

A recent incident came up regarding "Cultural Appropriation" which can be found here:



Doing a search for various responses to that video I found the following video that comes fairly close to how I view things. It's not very long but it does make several cogent points:



I lean somewhat left on economic issues as listed in that video, but libertarian on cultural issues. I am a neo-classical Liberal, believing that government is created by individuals to protect themselves from one another, to minimize conflicts that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. That it is necessary but should be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom while still preventing such conflicts.

So whenever I see people acting out to stifle the freedom of others, and twisting the situation to claim the moral high ground, I speak up. Situations like the woman in the video (unaware she was being recorded) who assaulted the student over his hairstyle while pretending HE started it by putting his hands on HER.

Shades of this video encounter: Trump Protester Gets Pepper Sprayed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBMWgMn52I

This is also why I haven't reacted the way SJW's expect when constantly barraging us with anti-Trump incident threads. I choose to not buy into the hype and histrionics of whatever SJW group incites a confrontation and then cry foul when they get the exact response they were hoping for. Instead I look at these incidents through a different lens, asking myself who is acting to cause the situation, rather than simply buying into the effect.

People often forget what these terms mean, liberal is derived from liberty and often is used to have, at least, a laizze faire attitude towards people in general.
The social justice crowd is not in favor of this, as they adopt "no platforming," internet mobbing and other ways of shutting down speech.

I'd say you're right where you should be.

 

[Kurmugeon]

There is a group of people in America who believe in several related things:

0] Group Identity trumps Individualism. A citizen's personal, individual merits, detriments, actions and deeds are NOT anywhere near as important as their Group Identity's history, background, and inheritance. Group Identity can be assigned to an Individual, by society at large, whether the individual agrees with the assignment or not.

1] Two wrongs, can be used by Government, one from the distant past, another done today by Government, to cancel each other out, to create "Justice".

2] It is possible to Inherit Criminal Guilt by similarity of appearance and/or Group Identity. Similarly, it is possible to Inherit Victim Owed Societal Debt by similarity of appearance and/or Group Identity.

The "Guilty" need only to come from the same Group Identity as some ancient true-Criminal, to be convicted of their "Guilt", even if the crime was done generations before the birth of the individual being assigned the "Guilt".

The "Societal-Owed-Debt" is due as "Reparations" to Individuals in contemporary society based only on belonging to the same Group Identity, even if the crime was done generations before the births of the Individual.

Assignment to Group Identity is done largely by surface appearance characteristics, but it can also be based on genetic or lineage inheritance.

It is possible to become a Honorary-Member of a Group Identity, for "Guilt" or "Reparations", based on the political needs of the contemporary SJW common assent.

Not everyone who adheres to the above concepts is a SJW. Most who believe in these concepts are NOT SJW, they are simply Progressives.

SJW; or Social Justice Warriors are those who have appointed themselves as the Judges, Police, and Punitive-Prison-Guards of the "Court-of-Group-Identity-Justice". They are the group who believes and takes pride in In-Your-Face! implementation of the above outlined principles.

The SJW believe that they have a Religious Duty-Authority to carry the concepts of the above concepts to the masses, in a sacred Jihad or Crusade type of Holy-Order-Sanctified-Quest.

Many SJW are self-serving, low-ethics Lawyers.

Yes, they are judgemental, self-serving, illogical, narrow minded, A-Holes.


P.S. Anyone who espouses the concept of Truly-Equal-Treatment of all Citizens, and the banning of differential treatment based on Group Identity, in other words, a supporter of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause,

... is in the minds of the believers of the above concepts, a Heretic, Infidel, Apostate, and must be immediately destroyed politically, personally, financially, and if possible, by criminal-verdict, to protect the sanctity of the Group-Identity-Faith.

Who do you think invented the concept of "Hate-Crimes"?
-

 

[Captain Adverse]

There is a group of people in America who believe in several related things:

0] Group Identity trumps Individualism. A citizen's personal, individual merits, detriments, actions and deeds are NOT anywhere near as important as their Group Identity's history, background, and inheritance. Group Identity can be assigned to an Individual, by society at large, whether the individual agrees with the assignment or not.

1] Two wrongs, can be used by Government, one from the distant past, another done today by Government, to cancel each other out, to create "Justice".

2] It is possible to Inherit Criminal Guilt by similarity of appearance and/or Group Identity. Similarly, it is possible to Inherit Victim Owed Societal Debt by similarity of appearance and/or Group Identity.

The "Guilty" need only to come from the same Group Identity as some ancient true-Criminal, to be convicted their "Guilt", even if they crime was done generations before the birth of the individual being assigned the "Guilt".

The "Societal-Owed-Debt" is due as reparations to Individuals in contemporary society based only on belonging to the same Group Identity, even if the crime was done generations before the births of the Individual.

Assignment to Group Identity is done largely by surface appearance characteristics, but it can also be based on genetic or lineage inheritance.

It is possible to become a Honorary-Member of a Group Identity, for "Guilt" or "Reparations", based on the political needs of the contemporary SJW common assent.

Not everyone who adheres to the above concepts is a SJW. Most who believe in these concepts are NOT SJW, they are simply Progressives.

SJW; or Social Justice Warriors are those who have appointed themselves as the Judges, Police, and Punitive-Prison-Guards of the "Court-of-Group-Identity-Justice". They are the group who believes and takes pride in In-Your-Face! implementation of the above outlined principles.

The SJW believe that they have a Religious Duty-Authority to carry the concepts of the above concepts to the masses, in a sacred Jihad or Crusade type of Holy-Order-Sanctified-Quest.
Yes, they are judgemental, self-serving, illogical, narrow minded, A-Holes.

-

Just the other day I had watched a Frontline show on the Saudi regime. Your comment reminded me of it and I found this excerpt:



This is not an attempt to discuss Moslem terrorism, just that the actions of so many SJW activists remind me of this self-righteous attitude.

 

[Mithrae]

I lean somewhat left on economic issues as listed in that video, but libertarian on cultural issues. I am a neo-classical Liberal, believing that government is created by individuals to protect themselves from one another, to minimize conflicts that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. That it is necessary but should be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom while still preventing such conflicts.

So whenever I see people acting out to stifle the freedom of others, and twisting the situation to claim the moral high ground, I speak up. Situations like the woman in the video (unaware she was being recorded) who assaulted the student over his hairstyle while pretending HE started it by putting his hands on HER.

Shades of this video encounter: Trump Protester Gets Pepper Sprayed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBMWgMn52I

This is also why I haven't reacted the way SJW's expect when constantly barraging us with anti-Trump incident threads. I choose to not buy into the hype and histrionics of whatever SJW group incites a confrontation and then cry foul when they get the exact response they were hoping for. Instead I look at these incidents through a different lens, asking myself who is acting to cause the situation, rather than simply buying into the effect.

There's nothing I strongly disagree with in the video, but while the two axis chart he uses is an improvement on a mere left-right political 'spectrum,' it's still a little simplistic, especially if the Y axis is considered to be purely cultural.

Similarly labels like 'leftist' or 'SJW' really don't do much to help understand folks' opinions even in the best of circumstances, and are sometimes downright misleading, unnecessarily divisive and even promote the kind of attitudes which they're ridiculing. If people are attacking a certain kind of attitude/behaviour as 'typically leftist,' people who identify as left-wing obviously (and often quite rightly) feel like they are being attacked and therefore respond defensively - defending and perhaps ultimately identifying with things which in more rational discussion they otherwise might not have.

Take that pepper spraying of the Trump protestor, for example: In the thread on this forum, the first video posted showed the young woman (in fact, a 15 year old girl) accusing the older man of sexually assaulting her by touching her chest. If that were true her subsequent actions would not be excusable, but in the heat of the moment, feeling humiliated and surrounded by a booing crowd, lashing out might at least be understandable - and really nothing whatsoever to do with her political views! But of course it was posted and framed as a political issue, and some folk potentially partial to those being attacked (Trump protestors) did the obvious and defended the girl. And then as it turns out other footage showed that she wasn't sexually assaulted, the guy she punched wasn't even looking at her when she hit him, and the police recommend charges being brought against her. But thread's poster wasn't looking for any kind of reasonable discussion on the subject, and it could just as easily have been the case that different-angle footage showed the man groping her initially and then reaching out again before she hit him.

Identity politics, such as is alleged of some left-wing folk, is not generally a good idea: But then what do we call labeling people 'SJWs' and the like, and propping up various cherry-picked and potentially out-of-context incidents to attack the presumed group of the protagonists, if not precisely that?



Trade Agent: You all are Browncoats, eh? Fought for independence? Petty thieving ain't exactly soldiers' work.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: War's long done. We're all just folk now.

Reckon folks would generally get along a lot better if we recognised that we are all just folk, all wanting what's best for ourselves and most of us what's good for our countries or species too, even when we disagree on how that'll happen.

 

[Captain Adverse]

There's nothing I strongly disagree with in the video, but while the two axis chart he uses is an improvement on a mere left-right political 'spectrum,' it's still a little simplistic, especially if the Y axis is considered to be purely cultural.

The chart is called "The Political Compass" and your position on it is determined by taking a quiz.

The quiz is found here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I've taken it 3 times over the years and I consistently chart Libertarian-Left.

Similarly labels like 'leftist' or 'SJW' really don't do much to help understand folks' opinions even in the best of circumstances, and are sometimes downright misleading, unnecessarily divisive and even promote the kind of attitudes which they're ridiculing. If people are attacking a certain kind of attitude/behaviour as 'typically leftist,' people who identify as left-wing obviously (and often quite rightly) feel like they are being attacked and therefore respond defensively - defending and perhaps ultimately identifying with things which in more rational discussion they otherwise might not have.

Take that pepper spraying of the Trump protestor, for example: In the thread on this forum, the first video posted showed the young woman (in fact, a 15 year old girl) accusing the older man of sexually assaulting her by touching her chest. If that were true her subsequent actions would not be excusable, but in the heat of the moment, feeling humiliated and surrounded by a booing crowd, lashing out might at least be understandable - and really nothing whatsoever to do with her political views! But of course it was posted and framed as a political issue, and some folk potentially partial to those being attacked (Trump protestors) did the obvious and defended the girl. And then as it turns out other footage showed that she wasn't sexually assaulted, the guy she punched wasn't even looking at her when she hit him, and the police recommend charges being brought against her. But thread's poster wasn't looking for any kind of reasonable discussion on the subject, and it could just as easily have been the case that different-angle footage showed the man groping her initially and then reaching out again before she hit him.

...But then what do we call labeling people 'SJWs' and the like, and propping up various cherry-picked and potentially out-of-context incidents to attack the presumed group of the protagonists, if not precisely that?

While I can agree that we should not label entire groups by the actions of a few, it is perfectly fine to identify a particular person or gathering by their actions.

I used the two video's to highlight a point on SJW tactics made in a prior thread about that pepper-sprayed protester:

There's another thing I'd like to point out in this video. Something I've seen repeated over and over in a number of confrontations involving aggressive women like the young lady in this video.

Listen to what the gentlemen says when she first accuses him of "touching my chest;" his statement is "YOU touched me, I didn't touch you."

Next, watch how she moves forward toward him and other's in her response interactions (see 0.15 - 0.18; again 0.20 - 0.22). In each instance she uses he chest to push up against him and others like the prow of a ship pushing through the waters.

This tactic is used so often it boggles the mind. Whenever someone puts up their arm to bar the approach, or (shudder the thought) hands out to try to hold the woman back by the shoulders...as often as not the cry "you touched my chest/breast" will soon follow.

The point is to get the crowd outraged at the male (usually though not always) who has violated the woman's body in a sexually inappropriate way, garnering their support of the aggressive female.

This then justifies any action in "defense" she may take with the full support of the crowd, which usually takes the form of a physical attack on the "offending" male.

This is one of many tactics we see activists, typically of the left, using to disrupt while claiming the moral high ground. Going to an event with the intent of creating an incident to defame your opponents. In this case those who oppose Trump will only see her "victimhood" and leap to her defense on general principles. Nothing the Trump supporter could do would change the dynamic. Either he was a brute for spraying pepper, or he was a brute for assaulting her person and making her react to defend her person.

Note, in the video with the student accosting the other student with the dreadlocks, even though she was the aggressor and initiated first physical contact, she tried to claim it was he who had touched her. As I've said, the tactic is fairly standard for female activists.

 

[Mithrae]

The chart is called "The Political Compass" and your position on it is determined by taking a quiz.

The quiz is found here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I've taken it 3 times over the years and I consistently chart Libertarian-Left.

As do I. Like I say, it's an improvement on a left-right 'spectrum,' but still fairly simplistic.

While I can agree that we should not label entire groups by the actions of a few, it is perfectly fine to identify a particular person or gathering by their actions.

...which would require first characterizing certain actions as being 'typical' of a certain group (and ignoring any possibility of unseen context which could produce the same results).

I used the two video's to highlight a point on SJW tactics made in a prior thread about that pepper-sprayed protester:

Noting that women's chests precede much of the rest of their body when they walk is hardly an incisive socio-political observation. You're finding stuff in the video that I'm just not seeing.

Note, in the video with the student accosting the other student with the dreadlocks, even though she was the aggressor and initiated first physical contact, she tried to claim it was he who had touched her. As I've said, the tactic is fairly standard for female activists.

No, it certainly is not standard.

 

[Captain Adverse]

...which would require first characterizing certain actions as being 'typical' of a certain group (and ignoring any possibility of unseen context which could produce the same results).

Yes, and they are typical.

Noting that women's chests precede much of the rest of their body when they walk is hardly an incisive socio-political observation. You're finding stuff in the video that I'm just not seeing.

Only because you choose not to. :shrug:

...No, it certainly is not standard.

Actually, it is fairly standard. I've seen it used over, and over, and over. In both female bullying, and just like in these two cases by women who are trying to justify their aggressive activism.

Of course if you've never seen it I can't expect agreement.

 

[Andalublue]

So, we're defining the 'Left' as the most extreme examples of college campus behaviour? I don't like white guys in dreads. It's an asthetic thing. Those that believe it to be 'cultural appropriation' are a tiny minority of a tiny minority. If people want to paint it as emblematic of left-wing politics, they've probably got their own agenda to push.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So, we're defining the 'Left' as the most extreme examples of college campus behaviour? I don't like white guys in dreads. It's an asthetic thing. Those that believe it to be 'cultural appropriation' are a tiny minority of a tiny minority. If people want to paint it as emblematic of left-wing politics, they've probably got their own agenda to push.

Where did you get that from in the OP?

The reference was to a section of the Left identified by the definitions and the examples shown or discussed in each of THREE videos.

I am Libertarian - LEFT. There are all sorts of "Left" designators, and if you self-identify as one neither like me, nor like the Authoritarian-Leftists mentioned, more power to you.

 

[Andalublue]

Where did you get that from in the OP?

Sorry, I got it from the YT clip you linked to. Quotes like: "Today's left is less about jobs, taxes and economics and more about identity politics." (around 1:00 into the video). He's not talking about 'sections of the left' but about 'the modern left'. Broad brush babble? I think so.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry, I got it from the YT clip you linked to. Quotes like: "Today's left is less about jobs, taxes and economics and more about identity politics." (around 1:00 into the video). He's not talking about 'sections of the left' but about 'the modern left'. Broad brush babble? I think so.

I see. Well I said he made some points I felt were cogent. My issue as indicated in my opening remarks was with people like the young women in two videos, and the list of different college actions mentioned in the one you viewed. I could have put up others regarding the Trump campaign, like the roadblock to prevent access to the Arizona rally, the Chicago protests, etc.

Again, it's not all people left of center. Just seems to be those who make the most noise and get the most coverage (which sells advertising).

 

[Andalublue]

I see. Well I said he made some points I felt were cogent. My issue as indicated in my opening remarks was with people like the young women in two videos, and the list of different college actions mentioned in the one you viewed.

Campus politics are to be taken seriously? Who knew?

I could have put up others regarding the Trump campaign, like the roadblock to prevent access to the Arizona rally, the Chicago protests, etc.

Yes, that would have been a bit more relevant. I don't take my political lead from over-excited 19-year-olds. I hadn't heard of the roadblocks, but that would have been silly, gesture politics by, I assume, a small minority of those people opposing Trump. I don't judge all Reps by the hard-core, head-banging Trumpists so I don't expect others to judge all socialists and social democrats by the actions of peri-pubertal, SJWs.

Again, it's not all people left of center. Just seems to be those who make the most noise and get the most coverage (which sells advertising).

Then we should be paying more attention to what people say rather than just how loud they say it. Surely, Trump's campaign is teaching us that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Campus politics are to be taken seriously? Who knew?

Yes, when it results in people being fired, prevented from free association, or free expression.

Why should violations of individual rights by social activists be ignored simply because they occur on college campuses?

Yes, that would have been a bit more relevant. I don't take my political lead from over-excited 19-year-olds. I hadn't heard of the roadblocks, but that would have been silly, gesture politics by, I assume, a small minority of those people opposing Trump. I don't judge all Reps by the hard-core, head-banging Trumpists so I don't expect others to judge all socialists and social democrats by the actions of peri-pubertal, SJWs.

Then we should be paying more attention to what people say rather than just how loud they say it. Surely, Trump's campaign is teaching us that.

Not really, because in the Trump campaign the media seems focused on trying to elicit newsworthy mistakes. The reason why they are so successful is because Trump is not allowing himself to be "managed," but rather is trying to maintain the plain speaking tactics which were so successful up until recently in his campaign. Unfortunately, his example is exactly why past politicians demonstrate mealy-mouthed and hazy vetted speeches; because they don't want to say anything that might lose them votes.

The media controls what we see and hear for the most part. Yes, there is always the internet, but what videos do we see? The ones that get the most hype. :shrug:

 

[cabse5]

Captain, I took the quiz at The Political Compass, twice, and scored about as close to (0,0) on the graph as possible. I was a little in the libertarian range and was right in the middle economically. The certificate produced from the quiz questions says the political figure I emulate most is Nelson Mandela, so there's that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Captain, I took the quiz at The Political Compass, twice, and scored about as close to (0,0) on the graph as possible. I was a little in the libertarian range and was right in the middle economically. The certificate produced from the quiz questions says the political figure I emulate most is Nelson Mandela, so there's that.

Well there you go. You scored a centrist and you lean Centrist.

What more can you ask?

 

[Kurmugeon]

A friend on another forum, discussing the subject of SJW, states that we simply have to Laugh at them long and often. There is much truth and power in this approach to the problem.

-

 

[Cephus]

People often forget what these terms mean, liberal is derived from liberty and often is used to have, at least, a laizze faire attitude towards people in general.
The social justice crowd is not in favor of this, as they adopt "no platforming," internet mobbing and other ways of shutting down speech.

I'd say you're right where you should be.

But that's kind of the problem, people use terms in different ways. Some people are looking at what terms used to mean, some are looking at what they mean today and often, they are nothing alike. And then people start pretending that they're the "real" liberals or the "real" conservatives and that adds a different problem to the mix. When everyone isn't using the terms the same way, the terms really lose any worthwhile meaning.

 

[Henrin]

From where I sit what I see is a victim hood mentality that sprung up as an unintended consequence of both rights movements that have taken place in the last few decades and also the catering behaviors of the left. We are now at the point where people are complaining about and demanding justice for what basically amounts to personal issues that the individual simply either needs to learn to deal on their own, or to put frankly, solve on their own.

What bothers me about it however is when people complain about things that are just factually wrong and so ridiculous that many times I find myself for a loss of words.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Are we talking about globally or just here in the U.S.?

 

[Orly?]

A friend on another forum, discussing the subject of SJW, states that we simply have to Laugh at them long and often. There is much truth and power in this approach to the problem.

-

SJWs will go down in history as the great regressive imbeciles of our time just like the past religious persecution of scientists for heresy and the burning of witches at the stake..