Young People and Politics

[frunk]

It means that if a similar religion to Islam had its practitioners in similar numbers, except from members of the majority ethnicity, there would be more open discussion around potential risks of its further spread and how that could undermine basing secular values which are foundational to our political system but are against the religion's teachings.

I think it comes down to what is a threat at the moment.  At least in the US there is no chance of Islam achieving any significant power, particularly compared to Christianity which for instance just recently has gotten the 10 Commandments to be required in all schools in Louisiana.  If something similar to that but related to Islam showed up, sure that would have to be dealt with.

Sure, I just feel like that should cut both ways and right now it doesn't, not in non-right wing public discourse. If female sex-ed members of the human race feel like they need safe spaces from male-sexed members of the human race (regardless of their societal gender), then male-sexed members of the human race should not be shouting the female-sexed members of the human race down saying they are intolerant.

If people need safe spaces they should have them, but I would push back against that accommodation if it would require marginalizing or persecuting other people.  Particularly if those people have historically been marginalized or persecuted in the past.

[Tamas]

I think it comes down to what is a threat at the moment.  At least in the US there is no chance of Islam achieving any significant power, particularly compared to Christianity which for instance just recently has gotten the 10 Commandments to be required in all schools in Louisiana.  If something similar to that but related to Islam showed up, sure that would have to be dealt with.

I am definitely talking about Europe, from what I know I would also rate the Islamist risk to US as zero. From what little I know it seems to me like there has been no economics-motivated mass migration of Muslims to there (not to mention that despite what the far-righters cry about, I'd consider a lot of that migration as internal - you don't get to have an Empire and then say people from it have no business being there).

If people need safe spaces they should have them, but I would push back against that accommodation if it would require marginalizing or persecuting other people.  Particularly if those people have historically been marginalized or persecuted in the past.

Sure but where do you draw the line? If a group of females (using that term to make it clear I am talking about sex and not gender) do not wish to accept into their mist males (even those who have changed gender) either because of their personal or community history with males (such as shelters) or simply because they feel it introduces the kind of male domination they are looking to get away from in the first place (sports) then why would their concern be marginalised and dismissed because a sub-group of males feel marginalised by that very (call it anti- or counter-male) protective policy? I hope I am making sense.

[Jacob]

My (possibly imperfect) understanding of the development is that the part of "we're the party of women's rights" that resonates with women voters in large numbers is the one framed as opposing Islamic social values, not the part building on trans panic.

[grumbler]

Sure but where do you draw the line? If a group of females (using that term to make it clear I am talking about sex and not gender) do not wish to accept into their mist males (even those who have changed gender) either because of their personal or community history with males (such as shelters) or simply because they feel it introduces the kind of male domination they are looking to get away from in the first place (sports) then why would their concern be marginalised and dismissed because a sub-group of males feel marginalised by that very (call it anti- or counter-male) protective policy? I hope I am making sense.

The question of drawing the line is the key, as you say.  Who gets to say what group is excluded because their inclusion would trigger someone else?  Should a Hispanic woman, let's say, be able to demand that no black women be allowed in the shelter where she is because she has had very traumatic experiences with black women in the past?  At what point do the accommodations become unreasonable?  Should the decisions about the reasonableness of an accommodation (say, to exclude trans women from all Olympic sports as an accommodation for cis women) be based on politics?  Traditional values?  Science?  Some combination?

There's no good clear answer, and lots and lots of bad clear answers.  We can settle for bad clear answers or good unclear answers.

[Josquius]

What reveals them to be utter scumbags in my book is how very absolute their hate is.

If they stuck to complaining against gender self definition and those crazies who want a situation where any guy can one day fill in a simple form then bam, he's legally a woman and can go perving in the women's changing room and nobody can do anything, then this would be fine.

As it is though they want a complete nuclear ban on anyone who didn't have the female form ticked for them at birth from ever getting treat as a woman.

This just seems really fucking insane to me. I'm sure being abused by a man will do a number on their psyche. But to then lash out as a tiny minority of women due to this? Pff.

Common sense needs to be applied. Someone who has been a woman for 30 years and has gone through a myriad of treatments to shift their sex heavily towards the modal female clearly deserves to be treat as a woman in the way some dude who throws on a dress one day and declares he's now called Sharon clearly doesn't.

I seriously have trouble even grasping what gets them so loopy over this stuff. Is their hate for men really so immense?

Where exactly to draw the line is a valid discussion. But it clearly doesn't lie with either extreme of anyone gender switching on demand or nobody ever been allowed to change no matter what.

[Gups]

Sure but where do you draw the line? If a group of females (using that term to make it clear I am talking about sex and not gender) do not wish to accept into their mist males (even those who have changed gender) either because of their personal or community history with males (such as shelters) or simply because they feel it introduces the kind of male domination they are looking to get away from in the first place (sports) then why would their concern be marginalised and dismissed because a sub-group of males feel marginalised by that very (call it anti- or counter-male) protective policy? I hope I am making sense.

The question of drawing the line is the key, as you say.  Who gets to say what group is excluded because their inclusion would trigger someone else?  Should a Hispanic woman, let's say, be able to demand that no black women be allowed in the shelter where she is because she has had very traumatic experiences with black women in the past?  At what point do the accommodations become unreasonable?  Should the decisions about the reasonableness of an accommodation (say, to exclude trans women from all Olympic sports as an accommodation for cis women) be based on politics?  Traditional values?  Science?  Some combination?

There's no good clear answer, and lots and lots of bad clear answers.  We can settle for bad clear answers or good unclear answers.

Very good post.

[Sheilbh]

Can't claim the credit for this - but possibly tied to the lure of the real theory.

Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?

Looking at the US where there seems like real despair after the combination of the debate and the courts effectively ending the administrative state's power. Between them those three pillars seem to have been the liberal theory of change for a long time. The squishy left basically only operate through influence on that project and the hard left don't exist. It's not exactly the same but I think there are similarities in Europe.

There's an ambiguity of a movement that has a cataclysmic streak (American carnage, Europe in danger, great replacement etc), also possessing a belief that those cataclysms can be changed - and by politics.

I know it's my answer to everything but I feel like we maybe need more politics - for change to be contested politically and democratically, with a retreat from the rights-based (judicial) or regulatory (administrative) theories of progress (which have, in any event, always been a defensive crouch). What's needed is politics, above all else, in the real not the virtual world.

As grim as it is, from Syt's post the far right in the US know what they want to achieve and an idea of how to do it. I'd argue the same for Meloni, Le Pen etc. I'm not sure either liberals or the left really have either.

Edit: It's perhaps also why liberalism and the left - great historic forces of revolutionary change - have ended up mainly talking about respecting institutions and the "rule of law". Again might not identify as a small c conservative establishment, but politics that are not a million miles away from one.

[Tamas]

Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change

That is a depressingly good point.

[grumbler]

Can't claim the credit for this - but possibly tied to the lure of the real theory.

Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?

Looking at the US where there seems like real despair after the combination of the debate and the courts effectively ending the administrative state's power. Between them those three pillars seem to have been the liberal theory of change for a long time. The squishy left basically only operate through influence on that project and the hard left don't exist. It's not exactly the same but I think there are similarities in Europe.

There's an ambiguity of a movement that has a cataclysmic streak (American carnage, Europe in danger, great replacement etc), also possessing a belief that those cataclysms can be changed - and by politics.

I know it's my answer to everything but I feel like we maybe need more politics - for change to be contested politically and democratically, with a retreat from the rights-based (judicial) or regulatory (administrative) theories of progress (which have, in any event, always been a defensive crouch). What's needed is politics, above all else, in the real not the virtual world.

As grim as it is, from Syt's post the far right in the US know what they want to achieve and an idea of how to do it. I'd argue the same for Meloni, Le Pen etc. I'm not sure either liberals or the left really have either.

Edit: It's perhaps also why liberalism and the left - great historic forces of revolutionary change - have ended up mainly talking about respecting institutions and the "rule of law". Again might not identify as a small c conservative establishment, but politics that are not a million miles away from one.

I'd feel more confident in replying to this if I understood what "politics" means in the two bolded sentences.  How can you have more politics than the 100% politics I see now?

[crazy canuck]

Can't claim the credit for this - but possibly tied to the lure of the real theory.

Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?

Looking at the US where there seems like real despair after the combination of the debate and the courts effectively ending the administrative state's power. Between them those three pillars seem to have been the liberal theory of change for a long time. The squishy left basically only operate through influence on that project and the hard left don't exist. It's not exactly the same but I think there are similarities in Europe.

There's an ambiguity of a movement that has a cataclysmic streak (American carnage, Europe in danger, great replacement etc), also possessing a belief that those cataclysms can be changed - and by politics.

I know it's my answer to everything but I feel like we maybe need more politics - for change to be contested politically and democratically, with a retreat from the rights-based (judicial) or regulatory (administrative) theories of progress (which have, in any event, always been a defensive crouch). What's needed is politics, above all else, in the real not the virtual world.

As grim as it is, from Syt's post the far right in the US know what they want to achieve and an idea of how to do it. I'd argue the same for Meloni, Le Pen etc. I'm not sure either liberals or the left really have either.

Edit: It's perhaps also why liberalism and the left - great historic forces of revolutionary change - have ended up mainly talking about respecting institutions and the "rule of law". Again might not identify as a small c conservative establishment, but politics that are not a million miles away from one.

I'd feel more confident in replying to this if I understood what "politics" means in the two bolded sentences.  How can you have more politics than the 100% politics I see now?

Yeah, especially since he characterized defence of liberal democratic institutions as a conservative position.

It would be better if he described what he has in mind.

[Zanza]

I think I get that part of his argument.

The right part of the political spectrum in many countries advocates for radical change (towards authoritarianism or libertarianism or something else outside the current mainstream). They are not conservative in the sense of moderation, traditions or keeping the current order.

Whereas the current liberal (or in Europe social democratic) parties want to preserve the institutional status quo. That makes these parties conservative as they are more moderate, tied to the current order and keeping with (recent) constitutional tradition.

[Josquius]

I listened to this interview the other day which was interesting.

https://youtu.be/TADeOmCVo_s?si=SElOxyBRTdEhycq

With the former chief political commentator of the telegraph. Very much an old school tory. I am reading those vibes there. The new tories being very anti conservative.
Though this is just one man. Many of the traditional establishment are only too keen to jump on board if it means winning.
(also more typically in novara medias wheel house I found their China mieville interview interesting. He really said a lot of stuff that vibed with my thoughts on identity pol and minority rights)

I don't think the issue is that only the far right are offering something. Rather the issue is that they thrive on nihilism and despair. Things going wrong and blowing up brings voters their way scrabbling to grab the biggest share of the pie.
The very belief that there can even be more pie just doesn't factor into many people's thinking.

It's easy to see why people would support this bollocks if you assume a mindset where the world can never be a better place and the name of the game is getting the biggest share for yourself.

[Admiral Yi]

Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?

I don't think the far right has confidence and self assurance in their ideas.  I think they have self righteousness at being wronged.

The center left has the confidence of being right in their ideas, but understand their ideas are about incremental change, which doesn't make many voters cream their pants.

The far left have immense confidence in their ideas and are furious that the rest of the world doesn't adopt them.

[Tamas]

I think I get that part of his argument.

The right part of the political spectrum in many countries advocates for radical change (towards authoritarianism or libertarianism or something else outside the current mainstream). They are not conservative in the sense of moderation, traditions or keeping the current order.

Whereas the current liberal (or in Europe social democratic) parties want to preserve the institutional status quo. That makes these parties conservative as they are more moderate, tied to the current order and keeping with (recent) constitutional tradition.

Yes this was my reading as well and I tend to agree. For one thing it aligns with the complete destruction of the old school conservative parties on the right. They have either sunk or became far right cesspools.

[Sheilbh]

I'd feel more confident in replying to this if I understood what "politics" means in the two bolded sentences.  How can you have more politics than the 100% politics I see now?

I think now is a very depoliticised time. People have been depoliticised, many issues have and even politics is reduced to "there is literally no alternative"/"what else are you going to do" v some iteration of fascism. I think the contrast of Le Pen v Chirac and now is a real example of that.

I'd argue we need a return to politics - of alternate visions of society, competing electorally with activists organising behind them in order to implement them legislatively. That for us who are on the side of democracy, we need to have that as our theory of change and have faith in democracy and being able to absolutely take on the far right politically. Not a rights based or administrative theory of fighting through the courts or the executive/civil service.

Yeah, especially since he characterized defence of liberal democratic institutions as a conservative position.

That's not quite what I said. Although I don't think conservatism is necessarily a bad thing.

The right part of the political spectrum in many countries advocates for radical change (towards authoritarianism or libertarianism or something else outside the current mainstream). They are not conservative in the sense of moderation, traditions or keeping the current order.

And the opposite. Liberalism and socialism have been great revolutionary historic forces driven by a vision of a different society.  What is the difference they're seeking now? It may be they're just exhausted and something new will come - it could be that, say, climate  becomes the new divide as the salience of liberalism and social democracy fades (in part because they achieved a lot of their goals).

Conservatism (and reactionary politics) are always salient because they basically range from "careful now" to "not this"

Whereas the current liberal (or in Europe social democratic) parties want to preserve the institutional status quo. That makes these parties conservative as they are more moderate, tied to the current order and keeping with (recent) constitutional tradition.

I'd go slightly further - if Trump and Le Pen win, and, as in Italy or Hungary they turn the institutions for their own purpose, then the foundation of a lot of their opponents will be undermined. Relying on the Interior Ministry and the courts to save you will be a mistake when they crack out the castor oil. (And you'll have no basis for changing your view except that now they're politicised, which just proves the far right's point.)

Or the problem would be solved if only the media described things as "lies" or used the correct language - as if it's just a problem of discourse. It's inane.

This is one of the things I find a little confounding with the US in particular. The Democrats argue (I think rightly) that democracy is at risk with Trump - are they behaving like a party that believes that? It feels very BAU to me. Similarly the left generally don't seem to be organising, they're posting. The contrast with previous far-right threats seems striking.

Yi: those feel like types, not a description those forces as they are today.