When even democracy isn't acceptable.

benway · 18-06-2014 12:41am

SeanW wrote: »

Says you!

"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is the centrepiece of a democratic free society. Anything less and you are not a protector of democracy but an enemy of it.

We know that the left opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with.

We know that the left does not distinguish between inoffensive conservatives like Nigel Farage and racists like Nick Griffin.

We know that the left has twisted the word "racist" beyond recognition and rendered it nearly meaningless.

We know that the left does distinguish between "right wing" people like the above and "other cultural groups" such as the Islamic-right, which gets a pass for much worse than any of the above.

The only question I have is why?

Classic. I love the use of the term "silenced" by right-wingers (see also: "hate", "incivility"). Particularly humorous when it's David Quinn or Breda O'Brien speaking from their one haven from rampant left-liberal persecution: their weekly columns in national newspapers. Case in point:

Poor John, such the victim. Comments on the article are comedy gold. (btw, fwiw, you should probably stop trying to sue your employer there John ... fyi)

Being serious for one second, there's no credible suggestion that anyone's being "silenced" here - not in the OP and not in the examples cited: voicing vociferous opposition is not the same thing.

But, as I say, embracing victimhood is one of the very oldest right-wing tropes. We, the oppressed silent majority, having our rights to discriminate against the gays, darkies, etc., etc. taken away by leftist oppression.

But they called me a racist/homophobe/etc.! I'm the victim here!

Also, I think you'll find that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is much more a defining characteristic of "the right", if you want to be like that. Ask "La Jeunesse Avec Le Pen".

The Corinthian · 18-06-2014 8:09am

benway wrote: »

Also, I think you'll find that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is much more a defining characteristic of "the right", if you want to be like that. Ask "La Jeunesse Avec Le Pen".

I'm sorry, but that really is self-serving nonsense.

As I said earlier, I don't believe that Le Pen was being silenced in this case and that those demonstrating against her are perfectly entitled to to do so, as long as they do not seek to pervert democracy (stop her from exercising her mandate), but to suggest that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is much more a defining characteristic of "the right" is either incredibly naive or disingenuous.

Even ignoring, for a moment, the silencing (and sometimes imprisonment) of dissenters in the former Soviet Union and Eastern block nations - not to mention current 'left wing' countries like Cuba and Venezuela, far left groups have never been shy about silencing those they disagree with.

Take David Irving, as a case in point. One may find his views repulsive and disagree with them entirely, but it is far left groups that use violent means to impede, disrupt and force cancelled any event that he speaks at. Why? Because self-appointed judge, juries and executioners, like Nodin, decide that it is in the greater good to do so based upon their simplistic, and partisan, definitions.

And I say partisan, because some of these same groups are more than happy to welcome any tinpot dictator as long as he has the right - more correctly left - ideological credentials; the SWP were once very happy to invite Nicolae Ceaușescu to speak to them back in the eighties.

And as a result, Irving goes unchallanged and your average man on the street will give him more credence on the basis that they were denied the opportunity to hear him - after all, there must be something to what he's saying if it is necessary to censor him...

So to suggest that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is a right wing trait is frankly moronic. It's a trait of extremism and found wherever extremism is found, be it right or left wing.

SeanW · 18-06-2014 9:47am

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I say partisan, because some of these same groups are more than happy to welcome any tinpot dictator as long as he has the right - more correctly left - ideological credentials; the SWP were once very happy to invite Nicolae Ceaușescu to speak to them back in the eighties.

I would be very keen on an explanation for this myself.

benway · 18-06-2014 10:25am

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that really is self-serving nonsense.

So, after four pages of hand-wringing over "leftists" (btw, who's to say whether the protesters were or weren't "leftists"?) having the temerity to protest against the rise of French neo-fascism, you've found an example of "self-serving nonsense"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't believe that Le Pen was being silenced in this case and that those demonstrating against her are perfectly entitled to to do so, as long as they do not seek to pervert democracy (stop her from exercising her mandate)

[/thread], tbh. But the wailing and gnashing of teeth has been quite entertaining, so...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even ignoring, for a moment, the silencing (and sometimes imprisonment) of dissenters in the former Soviet Union and Eastern block nations - not to mention current 'left wing' countries like Cuba and Venezuela, far left groups have never been shy about silencing those they disagree with.

Wut. Just for one example, weren't those awful intolerant leftists in Venezuela the subject of a righteous right-wing coup d'état not so long ago? They haven't gone away you know. And large sections of the media in that country that are far from friendly to the regime, and very far from silent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Take David Irving, as a case in point. One may find his views repulsive and disagree with them entirely, but it is far left groups that use violent means to impede, disrupt and force cancelled any event that he speaks at.

Violent means? Is that a fact? Because, to give a concrete example, iirc there was no threat of violence when UCC pulled his speaking appearance in 2008 - as I understand it, the protests led the college to reconsider who they were paying speaking fees to. RTÉ still went ahead and interviewed him, though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irving goes unchallanged

Eh .... so protests against his views don't count as a challenge?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I say partisan, because some of these same groups are more than happy to welcome any tinpot dictator as long as he has the right - more correctly left - ideological credentials; the SWP were once very happy to invite Nicolae Ceaușescu to speak to them back in the eighties.

To be fair, the SWP are very special in their own special way. But, if he had turned up, would it have been illegitimate to protest against his appearance? A simple yes or no will do, thanks.

The Corinthian wrote: »

but to suggest that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is much more a defining characteristic of "the right" is either incredibly naive or disingenuous.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So to suggest that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is a right wing trait is frankly moronic. It's a trait of extremism and found wherever extremism is found, be it right or left wing.

Naïve, disingenuous, moronic ... given that I was calling out the bould SeanW on that very statement in relation to "leftists", I'm assuming that you'd apply those charming adjectives to him also?

SeanW · 18-06-2014 10:43am

benway wrote: »

Naïve, disingenuous, moronic ... given that I was calling out the bould SeanW on that very statement in relation to "leftists", I'm assuming that you'd apply those charming adjectives to him also?

I was speaking as a witness.

SeanW · 18-06-2014 10:53am

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed, Here's some recent reference material he can use to back the "nuttier than the average bear" comment.

link list

In some of those cases of criticism, I suspect sour grapes. Most of the rest (i.e. unpleasant people with racist etc views) most of these have been booted out of the party because they don't share its views, or were never in the party in the first place. And rightly so

As for Nigel F failing the "wife test?" whatever the hell that is, Nick Robinson should be reminded - and it seems you need a reminder too - that naturalisation through marriage has been a staple of Western immigration policy since at least the '40s. Ergo, Mrs F. qualifies for British residency, even if there was no EU.

View wrote: »

Making racially motived comments about Romanians is hardly "inoffensive" by most peoples' standards.

If you are willing to defend such a person that speaks volumes about you.

To the extent that it is not an oversimplification, yes, I do. Because although he made the error of simplifying Roma = Romanian, it's very likely that the majority of Romanian nationals that moved to the UK and elsewhere are Roma. And many of those are only interested in begging, robbing and stealing. So there is legitimate reason for concern.

FWIW one of my college lecturers was a Romanian, soundest lad ever. If all the "Romanians" were like him, no sane person would have a problem with them.

The Corinthian · 18-06-2014 10:59am

benway wrote: »

So, after four pages of hand-wringing over "leftists" (btw, who's to say whether the protesters were or weren't "leftists"?) having the temerity to protest against the rise of French neo-fascism, you've found an example of "self-serving nonsense"?

No, I never criticized those demonstrations and have repeatedly said so.

When I referred to "self-serving nonsense", I was specifically citing the horseshìt you came out with about "you'll find that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is much more a defining characteristic of "the right", if you want to be like that. Ask "La Jeunesse Avec Le Pen".

That is "self-serving nonsense".

Wut. Just for one example, weren't those awful intolerant leftists in Venezuela the subject of a righteous right-wing coup d'état not so long ago?

Which coup d'état again? Oh yes, the right-wing one, because the left-wing one attempted by Chávez was a good coup d'état... because only the right resorts to violence. Except for when the left does. But that's OK, because it's justified when the left does. It's good violence...

Violent means? Is that a fact? Because, to give a concrete example, iirc there was no threat of violence when UCC pulled his speaking appearance in 2008 - as I understand it, the protests led the college to reconsider who they were paying speaking fees to. RTÉ still went ahead and interviewed him, though.

Actually the threat of violence has commonly been used as the reason for cancellations of his speaking, including UCC, in the past. I was on the committee of one college student society many years ago and when we tried to bring him for a debate, we got death threats. But surely that couldn't be the pacifist extreme left - it must have been all those right-wingers who were willing to use force to silence people they disagree with like Irving... oh wait...

To be fair, the SWP are very special in their own special way.

So they're not a far left group then?

But, if he had turned up, would it have been illegitimate to protest against his appearance? A simple yes or no will do, thanks.

You ignore my point, bring up a straw man instead and then want a "simple yes or no"? You've got to be kidding.

That they were happy to have him over is only an another example of the hypocrisy of such groups. Right wing dictators bad. Left wing dictators good.

Naïve, disingenuous, moronic ... given that I was calling out the bould SeanW on that very statement in relation to "leftists", I'm assuming that you'd apply those charming adjectives to him also?

If he came out with something as daft as you did, of course. But your statement is pretty hard to beat.

benway · 18-06-2014 12:01pm

SeanW wrote: »

We know that the left opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with.

Neither, naïve, disingenuous nor moronic, then. Ok so. Tbh, aside from pointing out that saying that oppression of dissent is more characteristic of the right does not entail that it isn't also a characteristic of certain groups on the left, I'm going to leave this little side-show aside for the moment, because ...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually the threat of violence has commonly been used as the reason for cancellations of his speaking, including UCC, in the past. I was on the committee of one college student society many years ago and when we tried to bring him for a debate, we got death threats. But surely that couldn't be the pacifist extreme left - it must have been all those right-wingers who were willing to use force to silence people they disagree with like Irving... oh wait...

UCC cited "security concerns", but afaik the reason was discomfort with where society funding was going. But more importantly, you tried to book David Irving for a debate? Really? What was your reasoning, exactly? What can a fantasist and racist like that possibly contribute to a reasonable discourse? Was it a play for attention? Ploy to irritate the "lefties"? I'm genuinely curious.

SeanW · 18-06-2014 12:51pm

benway wrote: »

Neither, naïve, disingenuous nor moronic, then. Ok so. Tbh, aside from pointing out that saying that oppression of dissent is more characteristic of the right does not entail that it isn't also a characteristic of certain groups on the left, I'm going to leave this little side-show aside for the moment, because ...

I have no idea what the hell you are on about - and as I said I was speaking as a witness to events in UCC a couple of years back re: Nick Griffen.

What was your reasoning, exactly? What can a fantasist and racist like that possibly contribute to a reasonable discourse? Was it a play for attention? Ploy to irritate the "lefties"? I'm genuinely curious.

Good question, but I think a far better question is why the organisers received death threats from leftist thugs.

BTW Freedom of speech works - in Memphis TN, the local authority renamed a park from "Nathan Bedford Forrest Park" (NBF was involved in the first Klan) to "Health Sciences Park." The current KKK organised a rally, and a black gangbanger decided to unite the Bloods and the Crips in a counter rally.

But on the day, it rained and the KKK only had less than 50 protesters. The 'banger abandoned his counter. Noone had to stop either, because both were a joke and everyone knows it.

The Corinthian · 18-06-2014 12:52pm

benway wrote: »

UCC cited "security concerns", but afaik the reason was discomfort with where society funding was going.

Is this as far as you know or as far as better supports your flawed argument?

But more importantly, you tried to book David Irving for a debate? Really? What was your reasoning, exactly? What can a fantasist and racist like that possibly contribute to a reasonable discourse? Was it a play for attention? Ploy to irritate the "lefties"? I'm genuinely curious.

No, you're now genuinely ignoring the rest of my post. You came out with a ridiculous and self-serving load of claptrap. Are you going to defend your claim or have the decency to admit you were talking out of your posterior?

K-9 · 18-06-2014 1:09pm

People have a right to protest and get an Irving debate cancelled. I'd prefer if he went ahead but people are entitled to get offended by his bile, that's their freedom of speech. The problem is there is competing interests. Some religious nut on a soapbox in town isn't going to be taken seriously, Irving supporters are. I don't think banning him gives him any extra support, it just enhances his supporters persecution complex, he gets attention whether the debate goes ahead or not. I'd agree left or right is irrelevant with extremists, whether that be N. Korea, the Eastern Bloc, Chile or Franco Spain the result is the same, they're hellholes that nobody should have to live in, the politics of the dictators matters little.

The Corinthian · 18-06-2014 1:50pm

K-9 wrote: »

Some religious nut on a soapbox in town isn't going to be taken seriously

Not even Abu Hamza al-Masri?

I don't think banning him gives him any extra support

I disagree. The moment you tell people that certain information is too dangerous for them to hear and you give that forbidden knowledge, even if there's nothing of value behind it, gravitas. The secrecy behind the Roswell incident has been the basis of a thousand conspiracy theories, as a case in point.

I'd agree left or right is irrelevant with extremists

The moment that violence becomes a legitimate tool of politics, then it really does not matter what 'ism' you ascribe to - this is why claiming that either wing has a monopoly on such behaviour is such an offensive assertion.

benway · 18-06-2014 1:53pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is this as far as you know or as far as better supports your flawed argument?

As far as I am informed by someone who was employed by the college at the time.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you're now genuinely ignoring the rest of my post. You came out with a ridiculous and self-serving load of claptrap. Are you going to defend your claim or have the decency to admit you were talking out of your posterior?

My, my, aren't we touchy? I am absolutely of the view that violent suppression of dissent is a defining characteristic of the right, and much more so than the left, whatever about "extremism" - I'll cede that there is a strong argument that all political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and there is obviously a level of arbitrariness around definitions of "left" and "right". Ultimately, I don't think this is likely to be a particularly interesting or a very productive line of discussion, although I do note that it all seems to keep coming back to the poor oppressed right under siege by jackbooted left-liberal thuggery.

Mainly, though, if you're suggesting that I'm talking through my posterior and but, "We know that the left opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with." is of a different order of reasonableness, that kinda tells its own story.

But seriously, why pay money to David Irving to have him speak at a university?

Permabear · 18-06-2014 2:03pm

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian · 18-06-2014 2:32pm

benway wrote: »

As far as I am informed by someone who was employed by the college at the time.

Given your responses to date, you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

My, my, aren't we touchy?

No, just a low tolerance for freshman debating tactics.

I am absolutely of the view that violent suppression of dissent is a defining characteristic of the right, and much more so than the left, whatever about "extremism" - I'll cede that there is a strong argument that all political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and there is obviously a level of arbitrariness around definitions of "left" and "right".

What a load of drivel.

Let me translate what you obfuscated there: "Right bad. Left good. Extremism meh. Politics is ultimately the product of violence. Left and right fuzzy."

I used to think that phrasing things like that was clever too when I was 18, btw.

Ultimately, I don't think this is likely to be a particularly interesting or a very productive line of discussion, although I do note that it all seems to keep coming back to the poor oppressed right under siege by jackbooted left-liberal thuggery.

In your head, perhaps. I have not made or even suggested anything of the sort. I have, repeatedly, simply pointed out that to claim that one wing or the other has the monopoly on violence or censorship is utter nonsense.

Given your obsessive need to frame everything in terms of left vs right (you'll note I actually have not done this), you now imagine that pointing out that the left is not holier than thou must be a defense of the right. It's not.

Mainly, though, if you're suggesting that I'm talking through my posterior and but, "We know that the left opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with." is of a different order of reasonableness, that kinda tells its own story.

I said extremism opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with - regardless of being left or right wing. If being able to argue from a position of neither wing is a difficult concept to comprehend, then you have a very flawed perception of reality.

But seriously, why pay money to David Irving to have him speak at a university?

Can you actually back up your claim or respond to my rebuttals, instead of ignoring them and attempting to change the subject?

benway · 18-06-2014 4:27pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given your responses to date, you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Believe what you like, my friend.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, just a low tolerance for freshman debating tactics.

Given the level of borderline ad hominem and overall quality of your own posts here, I'd suggest that you should be slow to accuse others of "freshman debating tactics". As demonstrated here:

The Corinthian wrote: »

What a load of drivel.

Here:

The Corinthian wrote: »

I used to think that phrasing things like that was clever too when I was 18, btw.

And here:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let me translate what you obfuscated there: "Right bad. Left good. Extremism meh. Politics is ultimately the product of violence. Left and right fuzzy."

The Corinthian wrote: »

In your head, perhaps. I have not made or even suggested anything of the sort. I have, repeatedly, simply pointed out that to claim that one wing or the other has the monopoly on violence or censorship is utter nonsense.

In a neat twist, this is not what I've said at any point.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given your obsessive need to frame everything in terms of left vs right (you'll note I actually have not done this), you now imagine that pointing out that the left is not holier than thou must be a defense of the right. It's not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I said extremism opposes democracy because of its willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with - regardless of being left or right wing. If being able to argue from a position of neither wing is a difficult concept to comprehend, then you have a very flawed perception of reality.

What does "extremism" even mean?

In case you hadn't gathered, I do not believe in syncretic politics. Left and right are fairly arbitrary concepts, but they're nevertheless about as useful a yardstick as is available in relation to political ideology. I am suspicious in the extreme of "third way" / "neither left nor right" politics.

And if you're trying to suggest that anyone argues from an entirely objective standpoint, free of biases, heuristics and subjectivities, then I'd have to suggest that it may not be me who has the "very flawed perception of reality".

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you actually back up your claim or respond to my rebuttals, instead of ignoring them and attempting to change the subject?

There may be an interesting point in there, the more that I think of it, and I might come back to it when I get a minute to give a proper reply, but right at the moment some of us have work to do. I'm still very curious as to why you'd try to book David Irving, but if you don't want to give your reasons, that's up to you.

Valmont · 18-06-2014 4:58pm

benway wrote: »

And if you're trying to suggest that anyone argues from an entirely objective standpoint, free of biases, heuristics and subjectivities, then I'd have to suggest that it may not be me who has the "very flawed perception of reality".

If that's true then we have to conclude that your post, Benway, is nothing but a subjective and biased one and therefore inapplicable for a consideration of The Corinthian's argument. I was with you up that point!

Permabear · 18-06-2014 5:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 18-06-2014 5:18pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, there's nothing like a selective list to convincingly make a point.

Permabear · 18-06-2014 5:26pm

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 18-06-2014 6:16pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably the most effective suppression was the McCarthy trials and that was in the supposed ideal democracy!

Manach · 18-06-2014 6:26pm

K-9 wrote: »

Probably the most effective suppression was the McCarthy trials and that was in the supposed ideal democracy!

Actually, from what I offhand understand from reading numerous sources, whilst those had an impact on numerous careers - it was over in a comparatively short time-frame (and grew out of an early-German/Nazi committee which targeted isolationists) halted by the built in checks and balances of that democracy.

Permabear · 18-06-2014 6:29pm

This post has been deleted.

crockholm · 18-06-2014 7:19pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm trying how to visualize how a North Korean General being shot at with a rocket for getting drunk during Kim-jong-il' bereavement period is less surpressed than Arthur Miller and Ed Asner being miffed at a temporary lack of work.

Nodin · 18-06-2014 7:29pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

O look, now its a numbers game.

Permabear · 18-06-2014 7:42pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 18-06-2014 7:51pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More nonsense. And a godwin, for the oul emotional 'low blow'.

Permabear · 18-06-2014 8:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 18-06-2014 8:18pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You'll be able to find the quote then and link to it.

If one left wing dictator kills 20,000 in a large country and a dozen right wing dictators kill 20,000 over a large number of countries, all ruling for 20 years, how would numbers indicate the tendency of either side towards repression? It's a silly, childish and emotive bit of hyperbole, with no place in a serious discussion.

Permabear · 18-06-2014 8:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 18-06-2014 9:39pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yep, an entirely appropriate use of the word, in the contexts provided, and nothing like what was implied earlier.

You're actually comparing my obviously pulled out of the air figures to the Chinese great famine....

Have you anything to add to the actual discussion?

Valmont · 18-06-2014 9:50pm

Permabear, I believe the correct view to take of far-left butchery through the ages is that some evil fellows corrupted what was initially a thoroughly noble and good philosophy. That these fellows are significantly more likely to turn up in countries run with a certain philosophy in mind is not to be acknowledged.

View · 18-06-2014 10:58pm

SeanW wrote: »

To the extent that it is not an oversimplification, yes, I do. Because although he made the error of simplifying Roma = Romanian,

Whether Farage used Roma or Romanian is irrelevant, both are racially motivated comments.

SeanW wrote: »

it's very likely that the majority of Romanian nationals that moved to the UK and elsewhere are Roma.

In the absence of data to back that assertion up it is both highly speculative and prejudiced.

SeanW wrote: »

And many of those are only interested in begging, robbing and stealing. So there is legitimate reason for concern.

Again a prejudiced comment since you are clearly happy to operate on the basis of guilty until proven innocent.

Most Irish people would not be happy with a prejudice where it were assumed they were terrorists because many Irish people really did support terrorism.

Perhaps you would since you are happy to support a politician who leads a party which recruited a candidate AFTER that candidate made anti-Irish comments.

benway · 18-06-2014 11:05pm

SeanW wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Some of my best friends, etc.

Valmont wrote: »

If that's true then we have to conclude that your post, Benway, is nothing but a subjective and biased one and therefore inapplicable for a consideration of The Corinthian's argument. I was with you up that point!

All of our posts are subjective and biased ones, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pretty sure the colonial "great powers" would take that particular "prize" - they did have hundreds of years in which to do it, but the waves of genocide across Africa, Asia and the Americas are unparalleled in human history. No Leftist Tin Pot Dictator™ can compare.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Suharto ... Martínez ... Somoza ... Mobutu ... Moi ... Batista ... Branco ... Duvalier ... Noriega ... Videla ... Diem ... Marcos ... Saddam ... Ul Haq ... The Shah of Iran ... Sadat ... Tudjman ... Milosovic ... Botha ... Salazar ... Franco ... Mussolini ... a certain other well known Central European political figure of mid 20th century ...

Oh, and Pinochet. How could I forget Pinochet. You Chicago boys love Pinochet, right?

Which, taken together, the history that informs my view that violent suppression of dissent or inconvenient populations is more a characteristic of the right. Although, in case I didn't make this clear enough already, it is of course a question of degree.

Guessing that some of you have never heard of many of those guys I cited? Which leads on to the one interesting point that I see arising out of Corinthian's histrionics.

It seems like there's a lost history of right wing dictatorship and oppression. These guys, Mobutu in particular, have records that make the well rehearsed bogeymen of Leftist Thuggery™ look like Choirboys.

It's interesting that in the late modern West, it now appears that it's not even necessary to violently suppress dissent - the techniques of neoliberal governmentality on the one hand purport to encourage absolute freedom of expression (especially for far right figures like Irving and Le Pen, not so much for Abu Hamza, natch), but on the other very effectively manage and subsume dissenting narratives by focussing the range of debate.

Chomsky spotted this, describing it as the technique of "strictly limit[ing] the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow[ing] very lively debate within that spectrum". The basic truth of this struck me earlier in the week, looks these days that Keynes now exists at the very leftward fringe of popular economic discourse - some achievement for the man who saved capitalism from itself.

Now, Corinthian, why in the hell would anyone book David Irving to speak at a university? Because of his masterful historical works?

Nodin · 19-06-2014 12:10am

SeanW wrote: »

In some of those cases of criticism, I suspect sour grapes. Most of the rest (i.e. unpleasant people with racist etc views) most of these have been booted out of the party because they don't share its views, or were never in the party in the first place. And rightly so

.............

But were they booted out because of their views, or because they were less than discrete?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament

Valmont · 19-06-2014 9:01am

What people seem to be missing is that oppressive dictators of both the right and left all favour large, authoritarian states.

The Corinthian · 19-06-2014 9:04am

benway wrote: »

Given the level of borderline ad hominem and overall quality of your own posts here, I'd suggest that you should be slow to accuse others of "freshman debating tactics". As demonstrated here:

Here:

And here:

I suggest you look up the definition of ad hominem, because the comments you cite all attack your arguments and not you.

At one stage you use ridiculously obtuse language for a non-sequitor that ultimately says nothing (unless you disagree with my translation of it). I've not seen drivel, and that is what it amounts to, like that since university, when as a freshman I remember being impressed by it, only to realize by my second year that it was just a cheap debating tactic to sound as if you are making an intellectual comment, when in reality it's just waffle.

To underline all this, while you've responded with such hyperbole, you've repeatedly failed to respond to pretty much any point I've made. You've failed to acknowledge that the far left has historically been as prone to suppression as the far right. Or that it will resort to violence just as quickly - as I pointed out when I pointed out Chavez's own coup d'etat; which you no doubt don't want to address because you'd be forced to admit that violence is sometimes justified in your opinion.

In a neat twist, this is not what I've said at any point.

Really? Let's look at what sparked this whole row off then:

benway wrote: »

Also, I think you'll find that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is much more a defining characteristic of "the right", if you want to be like that. Ask "La Jeunesse Avec Le Pen".

There you have the direct and unambitious implication that "willingness to use force to silence people it disagrees with" is a right-wing characteristic and that the left does not resort to this (or if it did it's some sort of aberration that doesn't count - like the SWP don't apparently count for you as left-wing).

What does "extremism" even mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

In case you hadn't gathered, I do not believe in syncretic politics. Left and right are fairly arbitrary concepts, but they're nevertheless about as useful a yardstick as is available in relation to political ideology. I am suspicious in the extreme of "third way" / "neither left nor right" politics.

That makes no sense. On one hand you feel left and right are fairly arbitrary concepts and at the same time you're suspicious of any viewpoint that rejects these arbitrary concepts.

And if you're trying to suggest that anyone argues from an entirely objective standpoint, free of biases, heuristics and subjectivities, then I'd have to suggest that it may not be me who has the "very flawed perception of reality".

I am suggesting is that despite human nature one should attempt to argue from an entirely objective standpoint, free of biases, heuristics and subjectivity, rather than from an entrenched partisan, subjective and biased view where you ultimately there is little to differentiate you from your ideological 'enemy'.

Were you to find yourself down a dark alleyway and find yourself confronted with some skinheads with bomber jackets and boots, the hilarious thing is that the only way you're likely to be able to tell whether they're neo-nazis or anti-nazi is the colour of their bootlaces.

Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster.

I'm still very curious as to why you'd try to book David Irving, but if you don't want to give your reasons, that's up to you.

I'm more than happy to tell all the gritty details, but only when you actually address some of the more uncomfortable points you've been ignoring - like how death threats were employed to try and stop any such meeting by the far left who according to you don't "use force to silence people it disagrees with".

SeanW · 19-06-2014 10:06am

Nodin wrote: »

But were they booted out because of their views, or because they were less than discrete?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament

They were booted out for being nutcases, and rightly so.

Your own link makes that question clear, if you'd bothered to read it beyond the headline:

Ukip insisted last night that Farage had not broken his word because the two Sweden Democrat MEPs, Kristina Winberg and Peter Lundgren, were obliged to write a letter to the Ukip leader distancing themselves from their party's past.

Your own article states that the SD moderated dramatically in 1995.

Further, from your own article:

Bergeron, the former FN MEP who joined the Ukip group, said she had been asked to stand down from the European parliament after she spoke in favour of giving immigrants the right to vote in local elections.

Oops

As to why this might be happening, the article goes on to make a suggestion from a political analyst:

"With millions of subsidies on offer, the European parliament's rules create strong incentives for parties to form groups, even when these parties are not natural bedfellows. It remains to be seen whether this alliance of parties that look so different from each other – Ukip, which wants to quit the EU, and Italy's Five-Star Movement, which does not want to leave the EU and supports a financial transaction tax – can coexist in the longer term."

Emphasis mine.

benway wrote: »

Some of my best friends, etc.

That's really informative, what exactly are you saying here?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm more than happy to tell all the gritty details, but only when you actually address some of the more uncomfortable points you've been ignoring - like how death threats were employed to try and stop any such meeting by the far left who according to you don't "use force to silence people it disagrees with".

Yes, my dear benway, please explain why leftist thugs sent death threats to certain UCC society personnel, because using force to silence dissent is not a left wing thing.

Then please explain why the left behaved in a similar fashion in ~2012 when Nick Griffen was invited to speak to another UCC society.

K-9 · 19-06-2014 1:15pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well it shows how even in a supposed free democracy witch hunts for believing in Communism or even Socialism can lead to ruining careers and lives. Obviously the comment was slightly tongue in cheek but seeing as we're going down the road of our murderous dictators weren't as bad as yours the point seems to have gone overs peoples heads!

Permabear · 19-06-2014 2:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 19-06-2014 2:38pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Kindly stop implying my words have a meaning they clearly do not. If you want to revisit a year old argument on another thread, please make the relevant post there and I'll be glad to oblige.

Permabear · 19-06-2014 2:57pm

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 19-06-2014 4:48pm

Dictators aren't left or right they are dictators no point blaming left or right wing for them.

Protesters are exercising their rights wish more people would do the same.

Criticism and replying to view points has been mistaken for shutting down and censoring a lot lately totally different thing.

Permabear · 19-06-2014 4:59pm

This post has been deleted.

benway · 19-06-2014 7:13pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In much the same way right-wing "intellectuals" have apologised for slavery, repression, genocide, plunder and exploitation for the past hundreds of years. And still do. Milton Friedman, I am looking in your direction. And you, Mises. Not forgetting you, von Hayek. I could go on, but who, then, would take up the white man's burden?

Permabear wrote: »

See, even to insinuate that I might support any of this is ludicrous. A libertarian has the advantage of not supporting large authoritarian states as a matter of principle. By contrast, the leftist finds himself in the uncomfortable position of railing against right-wing authoritarianism while tap-dancing around the ideological purges (including mass genocides) enacted by the left.

I'm not suggesting that you supported it, I am suggesting that your outrage is a little selective (biased, perchance?) Bit of a laugh to suggest, as if it were self-evident, that Chavez and Castro are apparently the king despots of the late 20th century, when the rogues' gallery I cited were all active at this time. Equally viz "Socialism killed the most people".

A libertarian has the advantage, when pulled up on this, to retreat into generalised sniffy abhorrence of the "large authoritarian states" ... I wonder how one is to deal with, say, the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company, the British East Africa Company? Francis Drake? Privateers and private militias? Let's face it, there *always* has been something resembling a state in human social organisation, and there always will be from the anarchosyndicalist commune to council of village elders to the corporation to the seasteader's utopia. It's not a question of whether it exists, just what form it takes and how it manages to balance the various interests in society. Argument is a not unlike when my SWP brethren go all "yeah, but that wasn't full communism". Anyway, bit of a digression here, probably for another thread.

Wouldn't be so flippant about:

K-9 wrote: »

the McCarthy trials

either, very much ties back into the new modalities of governance and the suppression of dissent that emerged in the Bernays era. "McCarthyism" was a supreme feat of political theatre, backed with a very extensive regime of discursive techniques (y'know, propaganda). Obviously, it wasn't violent - that kind of treatment was reserved for far-away people with darker skins who were conveniently ignored and forgotten - but it was very effective.

Have to run, but I've rambled enough at this stage that I guess it's worth posting. Toodles.

Valmont · 19-06-2014 7:58pm

Benway, how many millions of deaths would you countenance towards the establishment of a functioning communist state? How many more failed experiments? Every attempt has produced murder on unimaginable scales. Pinochet was a brutal dictator but if we're going to play a crass numbers game, the communists are always winning when it comes to killing, starving, and torturing. Why support the ideology behind such experiments? Libertarians reject authoritarian states, across the board. There is nothing inconsistent in this, it is simply the blanket application of the nonaggression principle. I note that you will not find any evidence of Mr Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, supporting any fascist states, nor apologising for their actions. Rothbard's philosophy is a better portrayal of the modern libertarian movement than some footnotes in Mises' Liberalism or a newspaper interview with Hayek. Rothbard even stuck it to Margaret Thatcher!

benway · 02-07-2014 11:07pm

Valmont wrote: »

Benway, how many millions of deaths would you countenance towards the establishment of a functioning communist state? How many more failed experiments? Every attempt has produced murder on unimaginable scales. Pinochet was a brutal dictator but if we're going to play a crass numbers game, the communists are always winning when it comes to killing, starving, and torturing.

No, the communists actually aren't "winning" in terms of death toll. The greatest mass murder of the past 50 years? Mobutu's Congo, at least five million dead. Who's behind that? Well it's established that the CIA couldn't bear to see the left-leaning Patrice Lumumba take power, so they supported Mobutu. Qui bono? The pride of capitalism, private companies, looking to loot the country's mineral wealth. And that's just one example.

Valmont wrote: »

Why support the ideology behind such experiments? Libertarians reject authoritarian states, across the board.

Nope, "libertarians" believe in gutting the democratically accountable institutions of the modern nation state - for all its faults - and replacing it with unaccountable private power. There may be greater or lesser sophistication in the ideological justifications, but at base level that's it. Doing away with Government does not entail doing away with government. The latter is an impossibility.

What's the qualitative difference between, say, Blackwater and the US Marines? One is an agent of the Big Bad Gubmint, the other is a noble corporation striving to break free of the yoke of Gubmint tyranny, amirate?

Valmont wrote: »

There is nothing inconsistent in this, it is simply the blanket application of the nonaggression principle. I note that you will not find any evidence of Mr Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, supporting any fascist states, nor apologising for their actions. Rothbard's philosophy is a better portrayal of the modern libertarian movement than some footnotes in Mises' Liberalism or a newspaper interview with Hayek.

Not meaning to get sidetracked here, but you know the way Rothbard's non-aggression principle is incompatible with the institution of private property? Well, it is.

Ownership of property isn't a quality inherent in the property, it's a set of social relations defined, at base level, by force. How does one ensure exclusive possession of property, otherwise than by force? Answers on a postcard.

Valmont wrote: »

Rothbard even stuck it to Margaret Thatcher!

And to crazy old Ayn .... stopped clocks, twice a day, etc and so forth.

But at this stage I'm well used to seeing assertions of the false equivalence between left and right - actually, the utterly false assumption that "leftists" believe in Murderous Communist Thuggery™, while the poor oppressed right just want to be left alone with The Markets and Freedom™ gently taking care of all mankind's ills. Nonsense on stilts, tbh.

What do think is interesting is the idea that "extremism" is bad and the "centre" - which seems to me to be defined as sitting somewhere between the right and the far right - is good. I honestly don't understand what the term "extremism" even means. Earnestly holding ideas and acting on them? Wouldn't that make Cato/Koch market fundamentalists "extremists"?

Violence? Here we see Obama arming Syrian moderates. And really what is so different about techniques of power that stop short of overt political violence, but govern the conduct of human lives and cause misery and death just the same?