The Freedom of Speech Thread

[garbon]

Are you going to consult the dictionary to determine what are social improvements next?

No, I don't need to do anymore homework for you.

[Josquius]

Squeeze, where do you gather your data on the frequency of people being called fascists and fascists claiming people call everyone they disagree with a fascist?

I wouldn't know where to start looking for this information.

More valid would be if you provide evidence for the claim the left just call everyone they don't like fascists.

[Sheilbh]

Progressive is a loaded term and not one their enemies would use.

I think it's normally better to use the terms the group themselves use - not least because I think that self-professed political identity helps shape and structure the way they think about and approach new issues. But of course it's loaded politics, in a democratic society at least, is about convincing people so unless part of your politics is shock then you'll try and choose a persuasive brand/identity. They are all fundamentally relatively meaningless in themselves, the meaning is entirely derived from context and what the supporters mean by it which varies from place to place.

Whether their opponents use it or not is less relevant. It is equally loaded as it's normally trying to brand their opponents and shape the debate in that way. Again that's just part of persuasion that on the one hand you try to persuade people to support you and also that the other side are beyond the pale. But I don't think the label from the other side impacts how people think about issues or act in the same way that their own view of their ideology does.

Progressive is a great example because from what I've seen it basically seems to have been used in the US as a replacement for "liberal" when "liberal" became a bit of a dirty word. So the Clintons seem to have been comfortable identifying their politics as "progressive" but so do people further on the left. All of course very different from the progressive era progressives. Similarly in the UK the politician I most associate with saying they're "progressive" is Blair - and he means it literally in the sense that you identify the forces of progress and embrace them. He's a little bit Marxist in his very strong view on technology driving things but also that there are social forces that are progressing society which politics cannot stop, they can resist (and be crushed by them) or embrace them.

[Malthus]

I would say that there is a major confusion about "progressives". That is: is this merely a new term for "liberal"? Some use it that way, but I think it is not.

In the US at least, there are some major fault lines between liberal and progressive. In general, liberals view the status quo as something that requires reform - while progressives are more of the opinion that the status quo is fundamentally broken and requires a more radical restructuring.

In this, they are more alike to the current bunch on the right - both of them think the status quo is irretrievably broken. Only their solutions to that problem are completely different. Both view those who merely want reform as tools of the system, compromised and corrupt.

[Sheilbh]

I would say that there is a major confusion about "progressives". That is: is this merely a new term for "liberal"? Some use it that way, but I think it is not.

In the US at least, there are some major fault lines between liberal and progressive. In general, liberals view the status quo as something that requires reform - while progressives are more of the opinion that the status quo is fundamentally broken and requires a more radical restructuring.

In this, they are more alike to the current bunch on the right - both of them think the status quo is irretrievably broken. Only their solutions to that problem are completely different. Both view those who merely want reform as tools of the system, compromised and corrupt.

I think this is where the enemies point that chip makes comes in - because I think there is in part a generational angle to this. I think for politicians on the centre-left socialised in the Reagan years, "liberal" is a bit dodgy. They came up when Ted Kennedy was the most prominent "liberal", there was all the talk about "San Francisco liberals" etc. So for them "progressive" was a more politically decontaminated word - it was an indicator of the centre-left that was forward looking in the 90s and 00s v the "liberals" who were left and backward looking to the perceived glory of the Roosevelt-Kennedy days.

I think for more recent generations that's shifted because the attack on "liberals" is coming from the left. They are critical of the 90s but not for its radicalism (as it had been from Gingrich etc) but for its failures. In particular they'd point out that the welfare reform, crime laws and embrace of the globalisation in full during the 90s is huge part of where we are now and also the left side of the "neo-liberal" turn from 79 to the mid-2010s. That attack is coming from "progressives" and, also noteworthy, is that you have people identifying as "liberals" again.

As I say these words are fundamentally meaningless like almost all other political identifiers. What defines them entirely is their context.

[Razgovory]

I've been using the term "fascist" much more since that march in Charlottesville.

[grumbler]

What descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification. 

By the original (US) definition of "woke" I am definitely one who considers himself woke.  I am not at all far left, though.  Woke is a shitty term to describe a person.

You totally ignored my question and my rationale and asking it.

I use the term "far left" when describing the far left.

[grumbler]

To me, a liberal is to the left of a progressive.  TR proudly called himself a progressive, but he was not a liberal.

[Berkut]

What descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification. 

By the original (US) definition of "woke" I am definitely one who considers himself woke.  I am not at all far left, though.  Woke is a shitty term to describe a person.

You totally ignored my question and my rationale and asking it.

I use the term "far left" when describing the far left.

I think woke describes something a bit different then just far left.

Bernie Sanders is far left, but I don't think he would be described as woke.

Woke is the far left, identity politics faction. I would call it radical left. 

They are the left wing opposite to Trumpers screeching about critical race theory in schools.

It's all emotion, no actual rationality or practical thought.

[Jacob]

Shielbh, the left critique of "liberal" (in the American sense) is older than the 90s. See for example Phil Ochs "Love me, I'm a liberal" from 1966.

And of course the contintental European meaning of "liberal" (aka US "classical liberal) has been critiqued from the left for a long time as well.

[Sheilbh]

Shielbh, the left critique of "liberal" (in the American sense) is older than the 90s. See for example Phil Ochs "Love me, I'm a liberal" from 1966.

For sure - I just don't think it was dominant for politicians who came up in the 80s and 90s. For them they're scarred by attacks on "liberals" from the right which is why I think they used other terms to describe their politics like "progressive" and "third way".

But that's flipped for younger generations who are criticisng Democratic politicians who would never have described themselves as liberals for being liberals. The label many politicians of that era ran away with to avoid Republican attacks is now one they're getting from attacks on the left

[Admiral Yi]

Squeeze, where do you gather your data on the frequency of people being called fascists and fascists claiming people call everyone they disagree with a fascist?

I wouldn't know where to start looking for this information.

More valid would be if you provide evidence for the claim the left just call everyone they don't like fascists.

More valid than what?  You just quoted me saying I don't know where to look for this data.

[viper37]

Both the "fascists" and the "far left" pretend that any Drazi not wearing their colors has opinions that are beyond the pale.  You can tell who they are by their unironical use of words like "fascist" or "woke" to describe those not wearing their colors.

Both are equally bad, but outside the US, the far left is far more damaging due to its mainstream presence.

When I hear educated people saying such & such subject should not be discussed or investigated because it will prove divisive, I am dumbounded, even angry at such silly talks.  It's the same arguments used by the GOP to avoid discussing any race issues.

[crazy canuck]

Shielbh, the left critique of "liberal" (in the American sense) is older than the 90s. See for example Phil Ochs "Love me, I'm a liberal" from 1966.

And of course the contintental European meaning of "liberal" (aka US "classical liberal) has been critiqued from the left for a long time as well.

Americans have really screwed up political terminology. I have no idea what the term liberal means in the US context. The term woke has become a term of derision and the right has been very successful in making it mean something it never did mean. People on the right can claim to be progressive in the US but in the same breath condemn progressives. It's no wonder that the right wing in the US can create a compelling narrative. They do a very good job of mixing everybody up about what those who oppose them stand for.

[The Minsky Moment]

I have no idea what the term liberal means in the US context.

It means any number of things, but the common denominator is that it is a term of abuse, typically used by people promoting unreasonable positions, whether left, right, or otherwise, to attack those who don't accept their argument.