Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Political morality and the Left/Right Divide

Recommended Posts

Alan Kurdi, it seems to me, is an excellent example of how people on the Left, liberals and progressives, however they like to call themselves, insist on presenting their own often impulsive and emotional responses to issues as that of superior morality. The picture of the boy dead on a beach pulled at the heartstrings, but it was only those on the Left who went overboard into almost a desperate demand that we bring over tens of thousands of Syrian refugees IMMEDIATELY. And anyone who thought otherwise, well, was an evil and uncaring person, and probably hated Arabs and Muslims too.

There was no thinking to their position, no rationality, no logic and no common sense (as is often the case with the Left and their 'moral' positions). There was a groundswelll of outrage that Canada had not allowed the family here (even though they hadn't applied) and that Harper wasn't immediately moving heaven and earth to bring over as many refugees as possible.

Conservatives (and conservatives) don't tend to react like that. Certainly the sight of the boy was sad, but conservatives tend to consider the broader implications and look upon things with more rationality. The boy's family had been safe in Turkey, remember. His father chose to put them all on an overcrowded, leaky boat in order to get to Europe for what was presumed to be an economically better life. In that respect, they were economic migrants rather than refugees fleeing persecution. Further, there were millions of them. We couldn't possibly make a difference by taking a few tens of thousands, and we couldn't possibly take millions. A far better response would be to try and help pay for the betterment of people in the refugee camps in Lebanon and Turkey and Jordan.

But rationality is not something the Left has ever had any time for. They believed such thinking was merely evidence of how cold hearted conservatives were, and how they 'didn't care' about the poor Syrians. They didn't want to know about complications or cost. They wanted promises of instant action, which, of course, Mr. Sunny Ways was pleased to give them. Heck, he probably wasn't interested in complication or cost either, being one of them.

I don't think there could be a better example of how the Left imbues its policy positions with a self-righteous sense of superior morality, and in doing so, of course, castigates anyone who disagrees as being immoral, uncaring, and perhaps downright mean spirited. What they want is for the bettermen of the world, after all, so anyone who disagrees clearly doesn't want the world to be a better place! And what sort of person would that be but an evil person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... its policy positions with a self-righteous sense of superior morality, and in doing so, of course, castigates anyone who disagrees as being immoral, uncaring, and perhaps downright mean spirited. What they want is for the bettermen of the world, after all, so anyone who disagrees clearly doesn't want the world to be a better place! And what sort of person would that be but an evil person?

I think that describes many - including yourself - to a Tee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that describes many - including yourself - to a Tee.

Nope. My positions are based on what I perceive to be the most intelligent and logical response. I don't ever presume that it derives from a superior sense of morality to others and I don't ascribe their own positions as being immoral, though sometimes on a very few issues I think it's fair to call them amoral, or morally bankrupt. That's almost always with regard to their support for Muslim terrorism violence and extremism, however. There are a number of people on this site, all of them on the Left, who clearly despise Jews, and support Muslim extremism because of that.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. My positions are based on what I perceive to be the most intelligent and logical response. I don't ever presume that it derives from a superior sense of morality to others and I don't ascribe their own positions as being immoral, though sometimes on a very few issues I think it's fair to call them amoral, or morally bankrupt. That's almost always with regard to their support for Muslim terrorism violence and extremism, however.

Ridiculous tripe. Good grief, do you seriously think anyone on this board posts what they think is the least "intelligent and logical response"? Your posts reek of arrogance and your own supposed superiority; you simplistically accuse everyone on the 'left' of whatever you disapprove of - supporting terrorism, hating Jews, anti-right conspiracy here and in the wider world.

There are a number of people on this site, all of them on the Left, who clearly despise Jews, and support Muslim extremism because of that.

Find me one post from anyone that clearly shows they "despise Jews and support Muslim extremism". Otherwise, STFU with your ridiculous accusations, and discuss the issues.

And before you whinge about how 'lefties want censorship of what they don't agree with", note I specified "Your ridiculous accusations" not discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous tripe. Good grief, do you seriously think anyone on this board posts what they think is the least "intelligent and logical response"?

I think that many on this board clearly base their positions on emotions, not logic or common sense. Positions based on emotions are rarely of much value.

Your posts reek of arrogance and your own supposed superiority;

Okay.

you simplistically accuse everyone on the 'left' of whatever you disapprove of - supporting terrorism, hating Jews, anti-right conspiracy here and in the wider world.

No. I do generalize, of course, but only where I find that it meets with my experience. There are many things I disapprove of which I don't accuse the Left of.

Find me one post from anyone that clearly shows they "despise Jews and support Muslim extremism".

That would be engaging in character assassination or direct insults of a poster which is against the rules.

Otherwise, STFU with your ridiculous accusations, and discuss the issues.

The issue on this topic is the purported sense of superior morality of the Left. So... that's what I'm doing.

And before you whinge about how 'lefties want censorship of what they don't agree with",

Many do. I've noted a very definite lack of enthusiasm for freedom of speech and expression among the Left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue on this topic is the purported sense of superior morality of the Left. So... that's what I'm doing.

On this, I am corrected - that is what this topic is about, as if it only applied to the "left" or the "right". People believe their own moral superiority, period. It's inborn and instinctive, and most people are unaware of it in themselves, even as they are only too happy to point it out in others.

In any case, this thread is a waste of bandwidth, and I ought not to have added to it. My bad. I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there could be a better example of how the Left imbues its policy positions with a self-righteous sense of superior morality, and in doing so, of course, castigates anyone who disagrees as being immoral, uncaring, and perhaps downright mean spirited.

I think that all political positions are basically rooted in 'morals'. e.g. logic may tell you that raising minimum wages decreases the number of jobs available to unskilled workers but morals tell you that this is wrong. Logic may tell you that the various people screaming about climate change are likely exaggerating the risks and under-estimating the costs but it is morals tell you it is wrong to waste money on CO2 reduction because that money would be better spent elsewhere. Even the tendency to demonize opponents as immoral and/or evil shows up on both sides of the political divide.

The difference is the mainstream media in Canada which tends to amplify the left when they want to demonize the right and seeks to counter attempts by the right to demonize the left. i.e. it was the media that made a big deal out of the dead kid. it was the media that yawned when faced with the damning allegations over the gas plant. it was the media that went nuts over an aid using his own money to pay back expenses.

Blogs are good for distributing counter information so no one has any excuse for believing the mainstream media is unbiased but blogs don't shape the 'issues' that are discussed by the political class.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with most of what Argus is saying (despite the faux outrage from dialahma). I've seen the left/right divide growing in the last decade, even now starting to exist in more central left/right encounters. In my view, the main reasons are increased access to media, communications, internet as well as an ever increasing sense of political correctness being generated mostly from the far left. It has come to the point where I don't even associate with any left wingers any more (including some family). Partly because of the reasons pointed out by Argus, but the main reason is (and this is only my own personal experience) because of the condescending way those on the left try to depict anyone who disagrees with them. I suppose that is why most of my posts show a general disgust for those on the left. It's a sad state of affairs, but for me personally, it's up to the left to change their attitude towards the right, before I'll change my view of them.

I also see (again only my own personal experience) more clearer lines between the left/right as far as economics are concerned. Most of the people I know that are left wing receive income either directly or indirectly from government sources (ie. public sector jobs, gov't. contractors, social services recipients, etc.) while most of the right wing people I know work in the private sector, either as an employee or as small business owners. I suppose that is why the left always seem to want to tax and spend, while the right wants to manage efficiently. I realize it's only anecdotal, but it is what I see around me, and for the most part, what I see online or on tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo of Alan Kurdi goes beyond partisanship. It was a remarkable photo that galvanized reactions and responses that probably saved thousands of lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo of Alan Kurdi goes beyond partisanship. It was a remarkable photo that galvanized reactions and responses that probably saved thousands of lives.

Saved thousands of lives? You got to be kidding. They have to beg these people people to come to Canada. That does not sound like people who are in fear for their lives. Who knows what the government had to do to bribe the ones who decided to come. The ones running to Europe are going because they are told they will be showered with free money if the can get to Germany or Sweden which is why they are not thrilled if they are told they have to go elsewhere.

I suspect most of these 'refugees' are economic migrants.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find me one post from anyone that clearly shows they "despise Jews and support Muslim extremism".

That would be engaging in character assassination or direct insults of a poster which is against the rules.

Not if you are quoting someone's post.

Go ahead Argus: Find a post where someone clearly shows they "despise Jews and support Muslim extremism".

Maybe Rue can help. :-)

Many do. I've noted a very definite lack of enthusiasm for freedom of speech and expression among the Left.

We're not calling for censorship. We're just calling you out on your nasty nonsense.

That IS free speech.

It's hilarious that you define 'free speech' as you being free to speak ... without anyone disagreeing with you!

Lol

That is NOT free speech.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered why so many posters on this site continue to post bigoted and racist statements. At first, I believed that it was just trolling in an attempt to solicit reactions. Then I saw that some of these folks really believe their prejudices. I had wondered why. Part of that answer may lie in the proliferation of social media - especially anonymous social media:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-08/how-facebook-makes-us-dumber

One explanation is that If a story fits with what people already believe, they are far more likely to be interested in it and thus to spread it. Users mostly tend to select and share content according to a specific narrative and to generally ignore the rest.

"The consequence is the “proliferation of biased narratives fomented by unsubstantiated rumors, mistrust, and paranoia.” And while the study focuses on Facebook users, there is little doubt that something similar happens on other social media, such as Twitter -- and in the real world as well." - And apparently on anonymous public access bulletin boards.

I also believe that the subsequent result is the creation of "group polarization". People will express biased, prejudicial, bigoted and racist views on anonymous boards that they would never admit to in real life.“Of the various explanations for group polarization, the most relevant involves a potentially insidious effect of confirmation itself. Once people discover that others agree with them, they become more confident -- and then more extreme. In that sense, confirmation bias is self-reinforcing, producing a vicious spiral. If people begin with a certain belief, and find information that confirms it, they will intensify their commitment to that very belief, thus strengthening their bias.”

In this way distasteful and dangerous views become mistakenly assumed to be acceptable.

What also contributes to this polarization is that people tend to read and listen to what they already believe:

"Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in the New Yorker, recalled an experiment performed by two psychologists in 1970. They divided students into two groups based on their answers to a questionnaire: high prejudice and low prejudice. Each group was told to discuss controversial issues such as school busing and integrated housing. Then the questions were asked again. “The surveys revealed a striking pattern,” Kolbert noted. “Simply by talking to one another, the bigoted students had become more bigoted and the tolerant more tolerant.” This “group polarization” is now taking place at hyper speed, around the world. It is how radicalization happens and extremism spreads."

This bodes ill for our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The consequence is the “proliferation of biased narratives fomented by unsubstantiated rumors, mistrust, and paranoia.”

Do you ever stop to consider the possibility that the narratives that you want to believe in are "biased"? What makes you so certain that you have the ability to determine what is "not biased"?

Also, the idea that people who support unfettered immigration are "tolerant" is completely laughable. They are just as bigoted and intolerant when it comes to groups they designate as "oppressors" (such as Christians or Jews).

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever stop to consider the possibility that the narratives that you want to believe in are "biased"? What makes you so certain that you have the ability to determine what is "not biased"?

Also, the idea that people who support unfettered immigration are "tolerant" is completely laughable. They are just as bigoted and intolerant when it comes to things that they care about.

I have to be careful. It is easy be be misdirected by others statements. Personally, I use the "replacement" technique to check if my or others statements are bigoted or xenophobic or misogynistic or ......

For example - The Muslim religion encourages violence and killing. Substitute and see if it makes sense - The Hebrew religion encourages violence and killing. The Catholic religion encourages violence and killing. The .....

Describing an action by a male as assertive, a sign of leadership etc and describing the same action by a female as aggressive , a sign of bossiness ...

Wearing a turban makes Muslims look silly. Wearing a shtreime makes Jews look silly.

BTW - Is there a poster on this board who supports and/or proposes "unfettered immigration"?

The other method I try to use to stay tolerant is to read views and watch media which does not represent my political views. I am a member of all four of Canada's major political parties and try to read their postings and mailings to aquaint myself with their views.

I have no doubt t that I do have minor biases as to how to raise children, brand of beer, brand of scotch etc. I have had a long and satisfying life which I think is due to the fact that I consider people as to how they treat me and each other and not their color, sex, religion, race or political affiliation. I have found good people to be of all colors, races and religions and jackasses of all colors, races and religions.

I do not think that anyone can deal professionally with people when you start with preconceptions of a person that depends on your prejudices as to religion, sex, race or culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be careful. It is easy be be misdirected by others statements. Personally, I use the "replacement" technique to check if my or others statements are bigoted or xenophobic or misogynistic or ......

Except the very process you use to judge whether something is "xenophobic" is biased in a way to ensure that you never fit your definition. Terms like "xenophobic" and "misogynistic" are usually used to mask the truth which is something like "I am plugging my ears because I don't want to listen to your arguments".

For example - The Muslim religion encourages violence and killing.

The truth is more complex. It is possible for followers of Islam to adopt a peaceful interpretation but a lot of countries that practice Islam are dictatorships that do not tolerate dissent and the culture of these societies does affect how Islam is interpreted and practiced by many Muslims.

Ranting and labeling people you disagree with is fun and easy but labels only exacerbate the polarization that is observed. Breaking down the polarization requires a willingness to accept that the people you label as 'xenophobes' may express themselves poorly but they have legitimate concerns that need addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture of the boy dead on a beach pulled at the heartstrings, but it was only those on the Left who went overboard into almost a desperate demand that we bring over tens of thousands of Syrian refugees IMMEDIATELY. And anyone who thought otherwise, well, was an evil and uncaring person, and probably hated Arabs and Muslims too.

I see your point. But at the same time, it was the Liberal and NDP parties, and not the public at large, that wanted to bring in these high numbers of refugees. If you looked at the polls after the boy's photo you'd see that a strong majority of people wanted Canada to help but didn't want 25k refugees brought here. The large majority actually supported Harper's plan of some refugees (around 10k) but helping regional countries deal with their refugees too.

Liberals can often be naive and unrealistic do-gooders and conservatives can often be ignorant jerks, that's the way it seems to work with those ideologies. I know many conservatives (not all) who are just straight-up xenophobes against Muslims yet have never really known a Muslim very well in their lives, so they're just ignorant. Classic old white people syndrome. Both philosophies can tend towards certain flaws but just in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saved thousands of lives? You got to be kidding. They have to beg these people people to come to Canada. That does not sound like people who are in fear for their lives. Who knows what the government had to do to bribe the ones who decided to come. The ones running to Europe are going because they are told they will be showered with free money if the can get to Germany or Sweden which is why they are not thrilled if they are told they have to go elsewhere.

I suspect most of these 'refugees' are economic migrants.

What evidence do you have of any of this?

More than 4 million people had to flee their homes and often their country because of civil war. Sure, some of it is opportunistic, and we aren't reaching the most vulnerable to come over here, but a lot of people are fleeing war and its effects, Obviously there's economic issues here, they had to abandoned their homes and much of their property. If you have no home, no job, no country or work status, how are you going to eat? Where are you going to sleep?

Meet the Syrian refugee selling pens to feed his young daughter. This came out in the news before the boy who drowned: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215167/Viral-photo-desperate-Syrian-father-selling-pens-street-carries-sleeping-daughter-raises-44-000-just-one-day.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have no home, no job, no country or work status, how are you going to eat? Where are you going to sleep?

Anyone in this situation would take any offer of sanctuary. The fact that many seem to think they can turn away offers of sanctuary suggests things are not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

Meet the Syrian refugee selling pens to feed his young daughter.

Anecdotes are not data. The data I am relying on are the thousands of refugees who passed through numerous safe countries to get to Germany. These people feel they can afford to be picky which means they are not as bad off as claimed. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone in this situation would take any offer of sanctuary. The fact that many seem to think they can turn away offers of sanctuary suggests things are not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

Anecdotes are not data. The data I am relying on are the thousands of refugees who passed through numerous safe countries to get to Germany. These people feel they can afford to be picky which means they are not as bad off as claimed.

Wouldn't you want to eventually go to the best country? Some of them are obviously not in dire straights. But they're still unable to safely return to their country, hence are refugees.

I'm sure there's all sorts of different situations among all the refugees, some worse or better off. A lot have made it to Germany. Who knows how long it took some of them or how they got there. A lot also remain in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan etc. From things I've read, it doesn't seem we're bringing in the refugees who really need our help, more like just meeting quotas to fulfill election promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you want to eventually go to the best country? Some of them are obviously not in dire straights.

Which is my point.

But they're still unable to safely return to their country, hence are refugees.

There are probably a billion or so people in the world that could claim they face danger in their home countries. They can't all be resettled. At some point we have to say no. I just bugs me that the ones that get the lottery ticket are based on whoever decides to show up at the border. I would rather do what Trudeau did on a smaller scale: identify at risk populations and go into refugee camps and identify *families* for resettlement (Trudeau screwed up by promising to resettle too many in too short a time. 25,000 by next January would have been reasonable). Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered why so many posters on this site continue to post bigoted and racist statements.

Yes, we know. Just about every day you climb up on your pedestal, adjust your halo, and then make the same pompous speech about how wonderful you are compared to everyone who disagrees with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever stop to consider the possibility that the narratives that you want to believe in are "biased"? What makes you so certain that you have the ability to determine what is "not biased"?

When someone uses Al Jazeera and Russian Television as their main sources of information, you have to expect that their view of the world will be... unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...