I can’t actually think of anything that is “loony” because it is on the left. There are positions I disagree with on the left (like accelerationism) but not because the people involved are proposing are completely illogical. And then there are things that are completely illogical that get associated with the left (like healing crystal bullshit) that aren’t really left wing.
I also have recently encountered this term in the wild, and it’s very clearly an attack on liberals and progressives, being used without thought. It’s very much in the Trumpian style of discourse, where you add a negative adjective every time you refer to a certain group you want to attack.
It’s not saying there’s some “loony” subset of the left. It’s saying that anyone to the left of the speaker is loony.
It is an old term here in the UK that did a lot of work back in the 80’s and here it does actually refer to a more extreme subset of the left. It definitely isn’t an attack on our concept of “liberals” but the “progressive” target label would likely be the same. (separated by a common language etc.)
Interesting to see it getting a run out in the states now with a different spin.
There are actually some number of persons who are sexually attracted to persons of inappropriate age or maturity who have no intent to act on their attractions. They recognize that they suffer from a problematic condition but because of stigma they are often unable to get support or help in dealing with their condition. What do you think society should do about this?
Have you tried to understand the argument for such positions or do you just think people in prison aren’t worth caring about at all? Why do you think it’s a waste of time?
What do you mean by that exactly?
So which of those do you suppose Facebook should say no one can identify as because it’s unreasonable?
All those leftists on Twitter on today who either celebrated the attack on Salmad Rushdie or were of the opinion “Freedom of speech doesn’t equal freedom from consequences”.
There’s this weird sub-group of internet leftists who basically think any criticism of Islam must be dealt with with extreme prejudice despite not being Muslim themselves.
That wasn’t what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing that he was peaceful. That’s why I linked to, you know, the paramilitary group he founded and led.
I am not a fan of the fact that there seems to be no constraints whatsoever on how severely speech transgressions are punished. I do agree there needs to be accountability for slurs and microaggressions and things of that nature. People should be corrected and informed and given an opportunity to do better.
Mistakes should have consequences, but it seems to be a roll of the dice – regardless of context or intent – that determines whether an offender gets a word from the supervisor, or probation from HR, or just professionally and reputationally wiped off the face of the earth. And there’s no real path for redemption. I would be unsurprised if someone takes issue with even the faint suggestion that limits to punishment should exist.
A society is headed down a bad place when a person’s public life is effectively ended just for saying the wrong thing. The outcome is what we see today… more hate speech than ever, and a faction of wrong-speaking people banding together for survival as they double down on the insistence that they will say whatever they want, whenever they want, and never move an inch for anyone. That seems to bode ill for fostering tolerance.
Best not to be too skeptical. Twitter is a Petri dish of horrendous takes from every political faction. Whatever you can think of, someone’s written it. The unfortunate fact is that many people have some sort of brain worms, and Twitter gives you a window directly into it.
Jumping in late here, so I’m probably covering ground that others have already traveled over.
Things that would be too far to the left for me:
Abolishing economic fundamentals like capitalism, the free market, and/or private property. We certainly need more economic regulation but I feel you can’t have a functioning economy without some form of reward system where people are incentivized to put more effort in.
Abolishing the police and/or prisons. Another area where a lot of reform is needed. But I can’t envision a workable system without some form of laws and a means of enforcing those laws.
Official censorship. You hear a lot of complaints about how “they won’t let you say that” but there’s actually no official body running cancel culture. All we have is private individuals saying they feel something is offensive and then seeing if public opinion follows their lead. That’s okay. But it would be wrong is we had some official authority that had the power to declare certain words or ideas as not allowed.
Eliminating democracy. This is as much a right wing threat as a left wing one. But there are people who feel the country would be better off if a small group or a single individual was running things and making the decisions on behalf of everyone; the benevolent dictatorship theory. But history has shown that these systems never work. Governments inevitably end up doing what’s best for the people who control the government.
Have a little read of one legal interpretation of Scotland’s proposed hate-crime law. It is more than a little concerning in its potential overreach and abuse to the point where, in its original form, prosecutions could be possible for speech uttered in the privacy of your own home and a very much reduced allowance for intent.
It has been passed by parliament but not yet in force I don’t think. Last I heard they were having trouble trying work out how it would best be enforced. No shit McSherlock.
The SNP are of the left but not what I would term “loony left” however if they consider legislation of this type to be core to their ideology and politics then it probably fits the bill for the purposes of the OP’s question.
Personally I think that such restrictive speech laws are evidence of
authoritarianism in general and that can come from any political wing.
In my opinion, there’s a difference between left wing and right wing censorship. With the left wing, it’s more egalitarian; left wingers tend to feel there are words and ideas nobody should express, even themselves. With right wingers, it ends to be more of a power issue; right wingers want to have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want about other people while denying those other people the same freedom to say things about the right wingers.
They were saying how unconscionable it was that the working class hero Bruce Springsteen would charge $5000 for tickets. My own thought was that every option they proposed would take money from Springsteen and give it to either Ticketmaster or the scalpers, because if that’s what the market will bear, then someone’s going to take the money, and it might as well be Springsteen.
I think of Animal Farm and the phrase “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” Which was obviously a far left critique but that thinking is a common feature of many authoritarian regimes.
Enforce restrictions or requirements on the masses but exclude yourself from the same.
Every time I’ve seen a claim of this, when it was looked into, it turns out it was more than just saying the wrong thing. And sure, public figures should be held accountable, they are given a platform, and if that platform is abused, taking it away is not oppression, any more than Fox News not allowing me to come on their shows to express my views is oppression.
I mean, lots of heads rolled over a mistake in not doing enough vetting about Bush’s war records, including Dan Rather, a long time well regarded journalist. There was no path for redemption, they were just removed from their places of influence of the public for failing the public trust. Brian Williams faced similar repercussions for recounting a personal anecdote incorrectly. People with public platforms are held to a high standard, and rightly so.
“Cancel culture” is certainly not an idea of the left, looney or not. It’s been alive and well among the authoritarian right for pretty much ever. There have been consequences for joining or supporting civil rights causes since well before the founding of our nation. Difference is, is that they use the power of the government to silence dissent, as opposed to the public expressing disapproval over the speech of those fortunate enough to be given public platforms.
The only remedy, the only way to prevent public figures from facing consequences for their speech is to prohibit criticism of public figures, and that’s a road to a very bad place indeed.
A former co-worker of my wife has become big on defunding the police after her son was killed by the police after a botched home invasion. She says the police had no right to shoot him. According to the local news stations, he tried to get away by shooting at the police. She ended up banned from all the social media sites because of her rants. Then she got herself in trouble with the police by driving away from a traffic stop. She tried to back over the officer that stopped her then almost hit a family in a cross walk. They had to pull her through the car window then taze her to put on the handcuffs. The reason for the stop? She had a brake light that was not working, the officer was going to tell her to get if fixed and let her go.
I didn’t get that impression from the transcript. It was more a question of whether this was actually a good idea from a long term point of view of sustaining a fan base, whether those who are able to pay $5000 for a ticket are the ones who would actually enjoy it the most, and whether ticketmaster’s algorithm was acting appropriately. I didn’t see any real moral judgements, much less accusations of “unconscionableness.” The only place a moral argument was made was that such considerations shouldn’t be made for things that people need, like kidneys.
There have been times when the performer is the scalper. I have not heard anything about Springsteen in this regard, but there are some cases where the performer demands a large number of tickets from the venue, supposedly for marketing, that they then sell off to the highest bidder. At least charging the high fees in the first place is more honest. Also, this is not pricing done by Springsteen, but by Ticketmaster, and I’m sure they are enjoying getting the cut from $5000 tickets rather than $300.
One solution that some bands have explored who want to keep ticket prices low for fans is by making a concert ticket like an airline ticket—non-transferable.
The transcript makes them seem much more reasonable than the actual podcast was. In the podcast, they went on at length about how immoral it was to overcharge for concert tickets, and how it should be illegal to charge more the $262 for a Bruce Springsteen concert.
Huh, not a very good transcript if they left all of that out.
If I have time someday, I’ll have to check out the podcast and see what they were talking about. I’ve listened to Marketplace podcasts many times (though I don’t think I’ve heard this particular one) and I don’t think I’ve ever heard them talk about what is moral or what should be illegal. That’s a huge deviation from their normal discourse.