# What's too "Loony Left" for you? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 11, 2022, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503 "2022-08-11T18:54:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/121 "2022-08-14T05:47:31Z")
As an example you moderate a forum and have some influence over discourse and you also have the ability to post and express your own opinions. You can use said influence to promote pro liberty stances when such stances are being actively debated. Even when acting with that sort of integrity may cause a loss of popularity. That’s why I mentioned it’s not a singular event and that it’s a process. Look at that ACLU example. It was and is controversial. It is however an essential act but that one act by itself didn’t forever negate the need for future action. In a conversation with friends, if said friends speak or agitate for action that is deleterious to the concept of individual liberty, perhaps, you can speak in a way that would encourage a bit more moderation or thoughtfulness. It’s not about hard power and forcing change, it’s about exercising influence that will at the very least communicate not just to your direct audience but also to onlookers that radicalism isn’t necessarily the way to proceed. The more people that stand up and push back against increasingly looneyness the better that it is even if each individual action considered in isolation seems meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/122 "2022-08-14T06:28:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > We can all piously agree that the mob was wrong to target her, but the mob being wrong doesn’t negate the damage being done to her employer by association. Should her employer be forced to eat the damages? To a degree, yes. Should an employer have a duty of care to treat an employee fairly? yes. > [@Miller](#): > > she posted a dark joke on a world-wide forum, and a lot of people missed the joke, and took her post at face value. How do you fix that? You can’t legislate everyone a sense of irony. There’s no perfect solution but let’s at least make changes where we can and perhaps remove a degree of power from the social media mobs. Showing them that they can’t always extract the revenge they want would be a good thing in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/123 "2022-08-14T06:37:02Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Have I summarised it correctly? If not, please tell me how I’ve misinterpreted it. What is the non-racist interpretation that I’m evidently missing, based on your comment? I would suggest first reading the links I gave in my original post. Jon Ronsons book “so you’ve been publically shamed” obviously gives a lot more detail as he interviews Justine and it is clear to me that her intent was a mocking of her own privilege, the dismissiveness of western society and solidarity with African aids victims. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/124 "2022-08-14T06:44:20Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > it’s about exercising influence that will at the very least communicate not just to your direct audience but also to onlookers that radicalism isn’t necessarily the way to proceed. The more people that stand up and push back against increasingly looneyness the better that it is even if each individual action considered in isolation seems meaningless. I’d suggest that my one proposal regarding employer responsibilities would be an example of one such, small worthwhile step. ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/125 "2022-08-14T10:14:17Z")
I guess it’s a matter of interpretation. The aspect that I found loony was the idea that demand pricing for a luxury good, like a music concert, was a bad thing and somehow comparable to kidney transplants or insulin. I suppose it’s a matter on which reasonable people may disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/126 "2022-08-14T10:20:00Z")
They are comparable in that they are both questions of pricing strategy and policy. From an economist’s standpoint , you are asking exactly the same question in both cases. The fact that there are significant differences in the two circumstances was pretty much one of the major points of the conversation. That’s in fact how you rationally discuss policy, by applying your proposed policy to a full range of situations and seeing if your policy has the results you desire. If not, you reconsider your hypothesis. It is generally assumed by most economic models that the person willing to pay the most for something values it the most and thus a rational economic policy would be to set the price at the maximum level that that person will pay. The conversation just touched on the observation that strictly observing this policy would not give us a desirable result in all cases. Similarly, in most situations, it seems rational to allow Uber to raise prices when demand increases. However, when demand is increasing because people are fleeing an active shooter, we might not like the result of this policy. And they never said that it was a bad thing for concert tickets to be priced according to demand. They discussed whether demand pricing takes into account all the factors relevant to the parties to the transaction and also whether strict demand pricing took into account all those factors, pointing out that there might be other considerations that are important to the parties or perhaps to society in general. ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/127 "2022-08-14T10:59:52Z")
From a theoretical or academic perspective, I agree with you. I thought the podcast presenters didn’t give enough consideration to the fact that if I need a kidney and can’t afford one I might die, but if I really want to go to a concert, and can’t get in, there are alternatives. The last couple of years have caused me to think hard about the difference between luxuries and necessities. I think that the loony idea is equating a kidney transplant, or access to insulin and a music performance. While basic considerations of supply and demand apply to each, I don’t think that should affect policy. I can work up a great deal of outrage about the inequities of the US health care system. I can’t work up any concern at all for someone who can’t get the best seats at a Bruce Springsteen concert. I found the tone of the podcast off-putting. I thought they were assigning an inappropriate moral dimension to the pricing of concert tickets. That may have been my interpretation, I suppose other people may differ. Just my (humble) opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/128 "2022-08-14T11:41:51Z")
> [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > I thought the podcast presenters didn’t give enough consideration to the fact that if I need a kidney and can’t afford one I might die, but if I really want to go to a concert, and can’t get in, there are alternatives. On the contrary, for a relatively short piece, they made it very clear that they believed there were significant differences between the two situations. As I said before, this was one of the actual points of the discussion. If you didn’t hear that, I suspect you were letting your personal feelings color your perception instead of listening to what they were actually saying. > [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > I think that the loony idea is equating a kidney transplant, or access to insulin and a music performance. While basic considerations of supply and demand apply to each, I don’t think that should affect policy. Again, they in no way equated a kidney transplant with a concert. The whole point of those two examples was to demonstrate that applying an economic model to two very different contexts would illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of that model. The point, again, was to show you that you can’t blindly apply a theoretical economic model in a blanket manner to all real life situations without thinking through all the implications. The economist brought the kidney example up to show you a very clear example of a situation in which most people would reject demand pricing. This was to put the concert example in context to compare the two situations. Again, the significant differences between the two situations was the point of bringing them up. There was nothing “loony left” about that conversation. It was 100 percent mainstream economic policy analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/129 "2022-08-14T12:01:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I guess I’m behind the curve. I thought the current conservative narrative was that the search was carried out by “rogue” FBI agents. Well there are a number of claims being made on conservative media, and I was being rather charitable in my summary of it – a lot of it is violent rhetoric about the FBI and the judge, who have been “outed” (the FBI agents’ names weren’t part of the warrant) and smeared. “Planting evidence” just happens to be core to most of the narratives. It’s not the same at all as…some guy (whose name I’ve already forgotten), tweeting a joke (probably) as evidence of the “loony left”. NB: I’m not trying to suggest that **D\_anconia** had _suggested_ any equivolence, or anyone else had. I’m just pointing out, as I say, that “loony” is not a “both sides” thing right now. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/130 "2022-08-14T12:49:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > He’s not saying you did. He’s pointing out that the only solution to the problem you’ve noticed is to institute limits on what people are allowed to say about celebrities. Which is not really a point discrediting what I said, is it? We can acknowledge the existence of unsolved and unsolvable problems, can we not? As I said, the mere suggestion that excessive punishment exists sends people _directly_ into denial and fallacious argument. i.e. I’ve decided the problem only has one solution, and that no solution exists for it, therefore no problem exists. Neither of you respondents even bothered to _ask_ for a possible example of the phenomenon because all rational thought terminated, i.e. "I have seen every case of this phenomenon, and all cases were invalid, therefore valid cases are impossible. If anything screams “loony left” to me, it’s topics like this where rational thought is effectively terminated instantaneously without bothering to ask for more information. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/131 "2022-08-14T12:59:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Considering that I didn’t “takes issue with even the faint suggestion that limits to punishment should exist.” you can stop patting yourself on the back here. Sure you did. That was the entire thrust of my post. You immediately took issue with it, as I knew someone would. I also know that at no point will you ever acknowledge the possibility that overpunishment exists. You’re exhibit A, so thanks for stopping by for the assist. Most people will at least acknowledge that in the entire universe of misdeeds and consequences, occasionally the judge gets it wrong, whether that’s an appointed government official or a mob. Or that individuals can repent and do better, and such people should be able to earn some redemption. But on _this topic_, for some reason, that thought is unthinkable. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/132 "2022-08-14T13:08:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > A white South African is flying to South Africa Nitpick: she wasn’t South African. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Above the level of hunter-gatherers or pre-plow farming? Yes. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Not good societies. MMV as to what constitutes “good”. > [@dorvann](#): > > The most extreme Leftist position I have heard is probably The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement What about the VHEM is “Leftist”, please? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/133 "2022-08-14T13:14:39Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > How old, again, is capitalism? I just want to get a sense of how bold a claim you are making. Let’s go with the obvious answer and say capitalism originated in 1776 with the publication of The Wealth of Nations. Of course, it took a while for its ideas to be adopted into practice in the real world. > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > Anyway, a propos nothing, I endorse the idea that being anti-intolerance is a pro-tolerance psotition. We need not tolerate intolerance. I fully agree. Some people make an argument like _“You don’t like racism. Well, I don’t like black people. So if I have to learn to live with black people then you have to learn to live with racism. We both have to deal with something we don’t like. That’s tolerance.”_ No, it isn’t. It’s not an issue of personal preference. It’s a divide between right and wrong. Racism is wrong. Being black is not wrong. They do not equate. So saying that people should tolerate black people is not the same as saying people should tolerate racism. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/134 "2022-08-14T13:18:37Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Even when the particular expressions are odious. [ACLU History: Taking a Stand for Free Speech in Skokie | American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie) is a classic example. As even Popper and Godwin could tell you, there is a big exception regarding the intolerant that promote “open incitement to persecution and violence against others” > **[Does Democracy Demand the Tolerance of the Intolerant? Karl Popper’s Paradox](https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/does-democracy-demand-the-tolerance-of-the-intolerant-karl-poppers-paradox.html)** > > Photo via Wikimedia Commons > In the past few years, when far-right nationalists are banned from social media, violent extremists face boycotts, or institutions refuse to give a platform to racists, a faux-outraged moan has gone up: “So much for the... > **[The Creator of Godwin's Law Says You Definitely Should Compare White...](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law-charlottesville-nazis/)** > > Internet rule be damned. BTW going a bit meta: one wonders how a thread like this one, where I do agree with several posters about things that are too loony that come from some leftists, does not cause some in the right to reflect. Because this is evidence that the ones you target in general in this board are not really a hive, it is an item that some conservatives miss a lot. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/135 "2022-08-14T13:22:01Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > > [@k9bfriender](#): > > > > Considering that I didn’t “takes issue with even the faint suggestion that limits to punishment should exist.” you can stop patting yourself on the back here. ⁢ > > Sure you did. That was the entire thrust of my post. You immediately took issue with it, as I knew someone would. I also know that at no point will you ever acknowledge the possibility that overpunishment exists. No, he didn’t. You’ve made up a position no one has actually taken. No one has remotely said that “overpunishment doesn’t exist.” That’s you bringing up a bunch of strawman talking points. And you seem to be the one unwilling to accept that people can disagree, as you have declared that anyone who does so just proves your point. You don’t discuss their actual argument. Someone literally came in and told you “that is not my position,” and you told them that it in fact is, and then argued against it. That’s a strawman, pure and simple. You aren’t interested in actually debating what they actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/136 "2022-08-14T13:22:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > Not good societies. > > MMV as to what constitutes “good”. I think I’m going with a pretty standard definition of what constitutes good in a society; equal rights and general prosperity. If you take a non-romantic look at pre-capitalist societies, you see that most people in them were living a pretty miserable life. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/137 "2022-08-14T13:25:22Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > Anyway, a propos nothing, I endorse the idea that being anti-intolerance is a pro-tolerance psotition. We need not tolerate intolerance. It is something that Popper addressed with his Paradox of Intolerence. It is a difficult concept to navigate, but I like his prioritisation in dealing with it. > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise In other words, as a priority we use speech as a counter to ideas we don’t like. Too many like the idea of surpression first. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/138 "2022-08-14T13:33:17Z")
What is important for me is to realize who is doing more of the suppression nowadays. > **[Altercation: There Is a Cancel Culture, and It’s the Right That’s Advancing It](https://prospect.org/politics/altercation-there-is-cancel-culture-its-the-right-thats-advancing-it/)** > > From banning books to dictating curricula, Republicans are the real cancelers, not that the MSM recognizes that. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/139 "2022-08-14T13:47:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is important for me is to realize who is doing more of the suppression nowadays. If you denounce it when you see it then it doesn’t matter who is doing more of it. I don’t think it is healthy to be concerned about it only when the “other” side does it. It would be a massive red flag to me if I considered my own reactions and realised that I rarely or never condemned that behaviour within my own political sphere. Is that really because it never happens (highly unlikely) or is it because I’m willing to let it slide (understandable but ultimately not helpful) It is like any criticising other peoples kids for things that my own do without comment. I’m actually _more_ concerned by what mine are doing, I hold them to a higher standard. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503/140 "2022-08-14T13:51:41Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > > > On one hand we have the Sacco case with a joke that was misinterpreted, ⁢ > > Help me out here. I’ve no recollection of this event so I went back on Google and read about it. > > A white South African is flying to South Africa, which has a major AIDS epidemic, tweets that she hopes she doesn’t get AIDS, then says she’s only joking because she’s white, with the implication that white people don’t get AIDS in South Africa. > > Have I summarised it correctly? If not, please tell me how I’ve misinterpreted it. What is the non-racist interpretation that I’m evidently missing, based on your comment? ⁢ Poe’s law, basically. It has always seemed very likely she was being satirical, mocking the idea that white people couldn’t get AIDS, and calling attention to how we see AIDS as this big problem in white countries but tend to not care as much about black countries. I’m not saying that necessarily is what she meant, but it is an obvious interpretation that should have been considered, rather than people jumping to the other conclusion. Poe’s law is a well-known phenomenon. The tweet indicated she wouldn’t be able to respond for a while, so they should have waited, not jumped to conclusions. * * * That said, it’s not this slam dunk that those who rail against cancel culture act like it is. It also fits neatly into the counterargument, because she is no longer cancelled. After she explained herself, people changed their minds, and she got a new job. It is not an example of someone who was severely harmed. It’s a cautionary tale to say to be more careful, not an indictment of the entire concept. The usual counterargument to those who rail against cancel culture is that the good outweighs the harm. (The other argument is that it doesn’t make sense to link things like criticism and cyberbullying under the same umbrella.) That we don’t need to completely eliminate the concept just because there are some times when it goes wrong. It had been going wrong for decades before the term was coined. I would argue it’s improved in the modern era, due to the focus changing. What we need to focus on is continual improvement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-too-loony-left-for-you/969503.md?page=8)