As Rugby refuses to take the knee, is it time the Premier League stopped too?

[The Red Thinker]

I really like your post in general, but the above statement is just horsesh*t.

Racism isn't an "invention", it is evolutionary tribalism. In small tribes, allegiance to the community (and animosity towards strangers) ensures the best chance of survival. We evolved past these tribal communities, but the instinct remains.

Racism has existed since the day we became Homo Sapiens (we even completely wiped out another species of humans), hence why it's so hard (impossible, probably) to eradicate. The only solution is to teach proper history, to vigorously defend the principles of humanist rationalism and to start very early in teaching kids tolerance.

I would implore you to understand that racism in its modern construct is strictly a creation of western colonial powers. There is no debate on this in the academic community. It is accepted as the fair and obvious truth. What you are referring to is Xeniphobia which is an ancient truth. But global societies were not enslaved on the basis of this. Caesar ruled Egypt but he loved Cleopatra a brown woman. This would not have happened in the colonial world. Racism when mixed with colonialism is whole other ball game. Please read “Superior” I really believe it will change your mind. You will be shocked how targeted the modern construct is. It is indeed a creation because they tried to prove it scientifically via Eugenics, only for it to be dropped after WW2. There are many tales I can tell you of the magnanimity of the local state leading to their own demise. Colonial Racism is indeed an invention. But I for one second do not blame all white people for this. I only ask them to acknowledge history and be better for it.

 

[MattyLT]

They don't do it to show support for the organization, they do it to raise awareness of racism. Its a clear difference.
If you mean that they shouldn't do it cause some people think racism is ok or that racism doesn't exists, well I don't know what to say...

No, it's not a clear difference. That's the problem. Whatever difference there is is by no means "clear". It's the same gesture, the same name and the same political, virtue signalling agenda that seeks to ram open doors that are already wide open, and have been for a while.

That's the philosophical part of it. As for the pragmatic part, it does absolutely nothing for race relations other than painting ethnic minorities in a bad light, as some kind of hive minded cult where everyone thinks the same and have the same opinions on all things because of the colour of their skin.

But you know as well as I do, and everyone in here, that there are plenty of dissenting voices to the neo-progressive agenda within ethnic minorities as well. And just the fact that I now have to make an argument along the lines of "not all black people think that" just shows how destructive and backwards this whole identity-political mass psychosis really is, where everything and everyone needs to be understood through the colour of their skin.

Personally - and this is my opinion - I think the state and state-like organisation (like the FA) should only view people as individuals. And it's a sad state of affairs when the harshest opposition to that line of thinking doesn't come from the far right, but from the "progressive" left. Joseph Goebbels must be having a party in hell right now. Swap out "genetic reasons" for "historical reasons", and it's all the same shit in a different wrapping.

 

[Botim]

I would implore you to understand that racism in its modern construct is strictly a creation of western colonial powers. There is no debate on this in the academic community. It is accepted as the fair and obvious truth. What you are referring to Xeniphobia. Racism when mixed with colonialism is whole other ball game. Please read “Superior” I really believe it will change your mind. You will be shocked how targeted the modern construct is. It is indeed a creation because they tried to prove it scientifically via Eugenics, only for it to be dropped after WW2. There are many tales I can tell you of the magnanimity of the local state leading to their own demise. Colonial Racism is indeed an invention. But I for one second do not blame all white people for this. I only ask them to acknowledge history and be better for it.

As I said, I agree we rationalised it, but my definition of racism is broader than the intellectual defence of it.

If you want to call it xenophobia, fine, but it comes down to the same issue: feeling superior to others simply because of your birth place/color/religion. There are endless examples of historical groups of people thinking they are the chosen ones (Egyptians, Orthodox jews, Mayans, etc) and using it as justification to enslave and conquer others.

Anyway, I agree with you on almost anything else. Just think it's important to realise that racism (or xenophobia) is unfortunately inherently human. Babies as young as 6 months display racist behaviour. Making it all the more important to start as early as possible with teaching the right values...

 

[golden_blunder]

Is Racism such a problem in the UK though?

I for one think we have many more problems than Racism, in fact, Id likes to believe racism is something of the past. Sure, I imagine there are still issues surrounding racism but how relevant are they to most peoples lives. I believe there are more divides than colour and Rashford for instance is highlighting that himself.

Black Lives Matter is a Political Movement, Political Movements have no place in Sport.

I grew up as a child on the 80s, I remember the Brixton Riots etc, I would like to think the UK has moved on and grown up since those days. Today we have so many laws enforcing equality that I don't think Racism is in any way the issue it once was in the UK.

If anything I think this "Wokeness" and I will use the term Woke, does more harm than good and highlights a problem that really isn't there anymore from a UK perspective.

You’re living in a bubble

racism is as alive now as it was in the 70s and 80s. Social media, trump, the tories, UKIP, brexit, it’s all made it so much easier to hold racist views with little consequences it seems to me

 

[Halftrack]

This is just pure intellectual dishonesty on your part, and frankly not something I'm going to dignify with debating. Get your head out of your own arse.

No, it really is you being ignorant. Taking the knee is an entirely separate thing from BLM, and BLM has nothing to do with the Premier League's current campaign against racism.

 

[Ananke]

This is just pure intellectual dishonesty on your part, and frankly not something I'm going to dignify with debating. Get your head out of your own arse.

Nothing less than I expected in a reply, considering your stance.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Point out to me this supposed leftist utopia.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that to the vast majority of leftists, the Nordic countries are the closest the world's ever gotten to something they'd call a utopia. The people who see the various "communist" regimes of the 20th century as utopias, or even having merit, are called tankies and are generally disliked by the rest of the left.

Good point. The negative aspects of the communist regimes of the 20th century were the authorianism, imperialism and persecution of ethnic minorities. These things are all inherently right wing.

 

[Park's Petrified Pooch]

Is Racism such a problem in the UK though?

I for one think we have many more problems than Racism, in fact, Id likes to believe racism is something of the past. Sure, I imagine there are still issues surrounding racism but how relevant are they to most peoples lives. I believe there are more divides than colour and Rashford for instance is highlighting that himself.

Black Lives Matter is a Political Movement, Political Movements have no place in Sport.

I grew up as a child on the 80s, I remember the Brixton Riots etc, I would like to think the UK has moved on and grown up since those days. Today we have so many laws enforcing equality that I don't think Racism is in any way the issue it once was in the UK.

If anything I think this "Wokeness" and I will use the term Woke, does more harm than good and highlights a problem that really isn't there anymore from a UK perspective.

Outed yourself with this post. This post, this thread, and some of the opinions in it are evidence as if it were needed that racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc. are as prevalent now as they’ve ever been. More so in fact because the smooth brained hate filled Neanderthals who hold these views now have a larger audience. Whereas in the past they simply gathered in shithole pubs in little klans.

I can’t believe this thread has lasted this long. As the answer was evident within a day of being posted. No. It isn’t time the premier league stopped. It isn’t a Marxist plot. It’s highlighting that things in our society are fundamentally broken for some. That problem hasn’t gone away. It’s raising awareness. If it’s upsetting you, get over it. Or turn it off. Football won’t miss you.

 

[The Red Thinker]

I

As I said, I agree we rationalised it, but my definition of racism is broader than the intellectual defence of it.

If you want to call it xenophobia, fine, but it comes down to the same issue: feeling superior to others simply because of your birth place/color/religion. There are endless examples of historical groups of people thinking they are the chosen ones (Egyptians, Orthodox jews, Mayans, etc) and using it as justification to enslave and conquer others.

Anyway, I agree with you on almost anything else. Just think it's important to realise that racism (or xenophobia) is unfortunately inherently human. Babies as young as 6 months display racist behaviour. Making it all the more important to start as early as possible with teaching the right values...

I agree principally with what you say. I speak of the societal constructs we live in and what has led to the world we live in. It may have existed in the ancient past, but I can only prove what is in front of me. I like that you use the word Superior, the title of the book I want everyone to read

You are right. We must teach from an early age that we may not all look the same, but beyond the skin lies near exactly the same.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Dropping a knee is offensive. According to this twat.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Good old Pickme Patel. What a piece of shit she is.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

OP and his "Wokeness" jibe requires absolutely no response from me, as he has no intention to actually talk about racism. Just the act of taking a knee.

Why does taking the knee evince such a poor reaction from people? Can't they see that it is ultimately but a sign of respect? A symbol of mourning? It is not about losing "power" but about giving "power" to all. It is an act of solidarity. That is all.

It is time for people who point to the BLM movement in the UK as the main reason to realise... Football is GLOBAL. The Premier League is a GLOBAL entity now. To most parts of the world those few seconds mean nothing but an acknowledgment that the problem exists. Black Lives Matter... why are those words used? because in many many countries it doesn't seem to. Hence, it must be said! To anyone saying "All Lives Matter" - of course they do! but the fire in your neighborhood requires the firemen to put out the houses on fire, NOT ALL HOUSES.

Listen... it all comes down to this. People who are so perturbed by footballers taking 5 seconds to show some respect to the racially abused... 5 seconds. 5. SECONDS... need to look themselves in the mirror and ask why they hate it so much.

Priti Patel is British. But her parents were Indian. Her grandparents were under tyrannical British Rule. They were denied rights by the colour of their skin. Considered less than by their overlords. The oppression of the British and their obsession with whiteness went so deep, that even today that idea of "fairness of skin" is prevalent in Indian. A colonial hangover. It's psychological.

Racism has a long and dark history. It is an invention of Western colonial powers to prove or rather reason WHY they had the right to colonise, plunder and "civilize" the likes of India, countries in Africa, and other parts of Asia.

We use statistics in football almost as a rule of law. It is one of the alters at which football and every other sport is evangelised. But did you know that the founder of Statistics, Karl Pearson, was the protege of one Sir Francis Galton. Both considered great mathematicians of their time, and pioneers of statistics. Their names still etched in stone in the hallways of King's College London and Cambridge. But little does the world remember that Sir Francis Galton was one of the greatest proponents of Eugenics. The vile study of humans intended to scientifically deem the white man superior to all others. Galton and Pearson created mathematical models needed to actively study hair and skin samples from across the world to prove Eugenics as an internationally accepted science. Think about it... Statistics was invented to prove racism. Hell, at one point Winston Churchill was a proponent! I would refer everyone to read the wonderfully well researched and award winning book "Superior" by Angela Saini to know more.

Racism is recent. Its stain hasn't left our societies left. Today it is systemic, quieter... more subtle. Maybe it appears in pubs, under-privileged parts of society, or even misguided populist political rallies, but for the most part it is kept under the lid. But, it rears its head when emotions fly and Axel Tuanzebe's mistake leads to a freekick that leads to a goal. That's all it took.

5 seconds of respect hurts nobody. There is no "wokeness" here. Just common decency. Become part of the solution, not the problem.

Good post but some extra context is that Patel’s parents were born in Uganda, a black majority country that expelled Asians 50 years ago.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Not really. The poor correlation between the gesture and the cause (if we're talking about tackling racism globally and not just in the U.S.) creates a lot of issues and it didn't yet became a universal symbol (at least outside of U.S. & Great Britain). I'm speaking from my own experience as to how this is perceived in Russia, for example — and I'm pretty sure that the same issues exist in other countries. I mean, the OP (or rather the news that were in the OP) clearly highlights that the symbol's new meaning is far from being settled and generally it's often associated only with racism against black people in the U.S.

Taking a knee symbol spread like a wildfire throughout the U.S. because of how well it illustrated the issue — and alluded to the United States' relevant political & historical context. Installing it as a global gesture against racism have not yet worked (mainly because the correlation between the gesture and racism overall isn't as evident for people in many, many other cultures) — and it has to be installed artificially, which is never a good thing for a symbol that you want to be spread world-wide.

Which is why I say that ideally there should be a more universally understandable symbol for this.

It’s been a thing outside of the US for less than a year. It’s only going to become more recognised worldwide as it gains more exposure (which is exactly why it should be continued indefinitely).

I definitely support this specific gesture as people unfamiliar with the original context can research it and find out exactly why the movement is necessary.

 

[Halftrack]

Well, that works both ways. you can't claim the right will lead us on a path to fascism, but deny the inherent dangers of leftwing ideology. Communism was viewed upon very differently in the west before Stalin. Remember half of western intellectuals (especially in France) were adepts.

The point is there's no such thing as a utopia. Our current system is flawed, but the solution is not some one sided experiment that completely ignores the wishes of the other side. The solution is to better living conditions for as many people as possible. That includes (lower class) white people. If you forget about them, the result will be more votes for parties with very dark ideas. People forget that the rise of fascism was the result of a system failure. That still holds true today: there wouldn't be Trumpism if our social democracies weren't so flawed. Thinking people only vote rightwing because they're backward racists is as dangerous as thinking immigrants only vote leftwing because they're too lazy to work.

The Nordic countries are nowhere near as left wing as you make them out to be, by the way. What exactly makes them currently more leftwing than say Belgium or the Netherlands? Norway has been lead by their own version of Thatcher for a decade now. Denmark has much stricter immigration policies than most Western European countries. And in Sweden the nationalist SD are the fastest growing party. In fact, they're probably the best argument of why you need both sides.

I'd like to know what flawed social democracy in the US led to Trump. I'd also like to hear some examples of what you consider dark ideas that are common on the left-wing.

I didn't say the Nordics were left-wing, just that their societies, with their high standard of living, universal healthcare, free education and strong social safety nets are what most left-wingers would consider the closest thing to a utopia we've ever had, or will ever get (though the idea that Solberg is in any way comparable to Thatcher is ludicrous.)

 

[Grinner]

Good point. The negative aspects of the communist regimes of the 20th century were the authorianism, imperialism and persecution of ethnic minorities. These things are all inherently right wing.

What about Yugoslavia under Titoism? Not strictly communist I know, but pretty close.

But, probably a discussion for another thread. To the CE Forum!

 

[MadMike]

Good point. The negative aspects of the communist regimes of the 20th century were the authorianism, imperialism and persecution of ethnic minorities. These things are all inherently right wing.

I mean, based on very solid evidence, they aren't. That viewpoint is just a narrative. Both right-wing and left-wing extremes have shown similar proneness for authoritarianism and violence.

 

[MattyLT]

Nothing less than I expected in a reply, considering your stance.

That's the point: I have my stance, you have your stance. I have no problem with you or anyone else being a leftist, as I'm sure you have your resons for that. What I have a problem with is leftists (or anyone else with a political conviction) expecting to get to ram their agenda down other people's throats against their will, in places, situations and venues where it isn't welcome (like in sports, which is supposed to be an apolitical arena for obvious reasons).

I even used to have a problem with football arenas marking "Veterans' Day", as that too has political connotations that doesn't belong in sports - a lot of people think the US/UK lead wars in the Middle East have been illegal for one. But at least that can be defended with the military being a national institution, and hence "for everyone" so to speak.

But BLM isn't for everyone. It's only for people with a particular set of political convictions, and a particular set of views on reality. So this entire BLM embarrassment is so glaringly obviously political that it's taking political weaponising of sports to a whole new level not seen since the Summer Olympics of 1936.

No, it really is you being ignorant. Taking the knee is an entirely separate thing from BLM, and BLM has nothing to do with the Premier League's current campaign against racism.

Just repeating that doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Botim]

I'd like to know what flawed social democracy in the US led to Trump. I'd also like to hear some examples of what you consider dark ideas that are common on the left-wing.

Oh common, you can't think of dark leftist ideals? How about forced allegiance to the collective? Forcible confiscation of wealth? Inhibition of free speech? Like I said, you can't claim racial purity as a right wing idea if you deny the existence of extremes at the opposite end. The majority of conservatives are perfectly reasonable people at heart. This equating the other side with evil (as is done on both sides) is part of the problem.

In the US, it's a failure of democracy that's part of the cause for Trumpism. On many levels, but mostly the fact that a very tiny portion of society has all the power and wealth. Trump just plays into this feeling of helplessness by pointing anger towards the classic scape goats (communists, immigrants, feminists, etc). I'm not disregarding racism, xenophobia, christian extremism and other factors, but underneath it all lay significant flaws in the system that enhance these prejudices.

I didn't say the Nordics were left-wing, just that their societies, with their high standard of living, universal healthcare, free education and strong social safety nets are what most left-wingers would consider the closest thing to a utopia we've ever had, or will ever get (though the idea that Solberg is in any way comparable to Thatcher is ludicrous.)

Thats' pretty much how they still are today, as are most Western European nations (Belgium ticks all of these boxes too, for example). Yet there are growing nationalist and xenophobic movements in all (or most) of these countries, so either these utopias are very shallow or there's surely a better form.

 

[harms]

It’s been a thing outside of the US for less than a year. It’s only going to become more recognised worldwide as it gains more exposure (which is exactly why it should be continued indefinitely).

I definitely support this specific gesture as people unfamiliar with the original context can research it and find out exactly why the movement is necessary.

And it's not really growing, and, more importantly, it doesn't have potential to grow. If you want something to gain traction, you don't make it overly complicated for most of the potential audience. If a symbol needs people to go and research stuff before understanding what it is about, instead of being instantly recognizable and intuitively understandable & inspiring to learn more on the issue, it's a bad symbol.

There's a reason why Nike's slogan is "Let's do it" and not "Why are there beings at all, instead of Nothing?". Anyway, I'm out, I think I've made my point very clear and I don't want to somehow end up on a side that's criticising the cause instead of the form chosen to shed light on the issue.

 

[Apokalips]

Outed yourself with this post. This post, this thread, and some of the opinions in it are evidence as if it were needed that racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc. are as prevalent now as they’ve ever been. More so in fact because the smooth brained hate filled Neanderthals who hold these views now have a larger audience. Whereas in the past they simply gathered in shithole pubs in little klans.

I can’t believe this thread has lasted this long. As the answer was evident within a day of being posted. No. It isn’t time the premier league stopped. It isn’t a Marxist plot. It’s highlighting that things in our society are fundamentally broken for some. That problem hasn’t gone away. It’s raising awareness. If it’s upsetting you, get over it. Or turn it off. Football won’t miss you.

Fully agreed. The amount of people that are so oblivious to how big an issue racism is in this country speaks volumes, never looking beyond their own nose.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

And it's not really growing, and, more importantly, it doesn't have potential to grow. If you want something to gain traction, you don't make it overly complicated for most of the potential audience. If a symbol needs people to go and research stuff before understanding what it is about, instead of being instantly recognizable and intuitively understandable & inspiring to learn more on the issue, it's a bad symbol.

There is no intuitive gesture to get across the message that black lives matter. It’s a lack of exposure outside of the anglosphere which is the issue. It’s just as foreign to the majority of Brits as it would be to Russians but the PL has made it a clear gesture. At least in the west, the growth in one year has been phenomenal.

Do you think the Black Power gesture was an obvious and intuitive gesture that the world would instantly understand prior to the 1968 Olympics?

 

[harms]

Do you think the Black Power gesture was an obvious and intuitive gesture that the world would instantly understand prior to the 1968 Olympics?

That's actually a great example of a spot on and intuitively understandable image. Anyway, I'm out — I don't think that I have anything else to say on the matter & we clearly won't agree. Let's just hope that either I'm wrong or that we'll see a better symbol coming up in the future

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Good point. The negative aspects of the communist regimes of the 20th century were the authorianism, imperialism and persecution of ethnic minorities. These things are all inherently right wing.

Communism is basically an extreme version of socialism, which is to the far end of the left wing.

 

[Ananke]

That's the point: I have my stance, you have your stance. I have no problem with you or anyone else being a leftist, as I'm sure you have your resons for that. What I have a problem with is leftists (or anyone else with a political conviction) expecting to get to ram their agenda down other people's throats against their will, in places, situations and venues where it isn't welcome (like in sports, which is supposed to be an apolitical arena for obvious reasons).

I don't consider myself a "leftist" actually. You continuing to say that taking the knee has to always refer to the political BLM movement, does not make it true. No matter how many times you say it. You seem to have a problem with leftists since, rather than just state "anyone with a political conviction" you targeted leftists specifically. Pretty much indicates your thoughts towards a select group of people. And "ramming their agenda down other people's throats against their will" seems a little exaggerated. Some players take a knee for 5-10 seconds to show a sign of solidarity and you're feeling ostracized?

Honestly what does that say about you. Just think about it.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Communism is basically an extreme version of socialism, which is to the far end of the left wing.

It’s socialism with right-wing dictatorship elements. The right-wing parts are the problem, not the socialism.

 

[Halftrack]

Just repeating that doesn't make it any more true.

Taking the knee against racism originated with Colin Kaepernick and is completely separate from BLM, always has been. The Premier League not having anything to do with BLM is a fact. They had a brief cooperation after the restart last season, before the PL decided to go with its own initiative, No Room for Racism.

Care to provide any proof of your assertion that it has anything to do with BLM?

 

[Botim]

It’s socialism with right-wing dictatorship elements. The right-wing parts are the problem, not the socialism.

No it isn't. Is Kim Jong Un right wing? No, it's just inevitable that any ideology thought through to the extreme results in authoritarianism. It's the only way to enforce a system that will likely upset a large part of the population.

What do you do if someone doesn't want to share their wealth? You take it from them by force. That's exactly what happened in Russia, Cambodia, etc

 

[Cheimoon]

Point out to me this supposed leftist utopia.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that to the vast majority of leftists, the Nordic countries are the closest the world's ever gotten to something they'd call a utopia. The people who see the various "communist" regimes of the 20th century as utopias, or even having merit, are called tankies and are generally disliked by the rest of the left.

Good point. The negative aspects of the communist regimes of the 20th century were the authorianism, imperialism and persecution of ethnic minorities. These things are all inherently right wing.

I'm not sure I follow exactly where this fits in, so let me know if my response here is a non-sequitur to your comments (or if I'm being Captain Obvious) - but I would just point out that there are a couple of different dimensions to societal leanings: political (from anarchist to authoritarian), economic (from socialism to capitalism), and social (from progressive to conservative). When people talk about 'left' and 'right', they usually put these categories together based on (predominantly) the UK and US contrasts between the 'left' (Labour or Dems) and 'right' (Tories or Reps), but it's different in other political contexts.

Case in point, I would say that e.g. Russian or Chinese communism was only on the left economically (socialist; much less so in China now of course), but on the right politically (authoritarian) and socially (conservative). (I've left out other communist countries, as I'm not as clear where they stood socially; but probably also on the right-ist side of things.) When we're talking about the leftist stance on racism, we tend to focus predominantly on the social dimension, which thus has little to do with Russia or China. However, people that look at racial inequity in more detail and study underlying causes and further societal consequences, soon realize that racism has a strong economic component, and hence campaign for leftist economical ideas as well - hence the BLM organization's stance on economics.

 

[Superden]

apologies in advance as ive not waded through any of the 20 pages of this thread, but the OP included 'all lives matter' and a dig at 'wokeness'.

pffft.

thats my intellectual response.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

If you're on the opposite side of an issue from Priti Patel then you can usually feel secure in your thinking.

Yep. She is not the sharpest tool in the box.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

No it isn't. Is Kim Jong Un right wing? No, it's just inevitable that any ideology thought through to the extreme results in authoritarianism. It's the only way to enforce a system that will likely upset a large part of the population.

What do you do if someone doesn't want to share their wealth? You take it from them by force. That's exactly what happened in Russia, Cambodia, etc

He’s basically an old fashioned monarch ruling over a hyper nationalist state with very limited civil rights. That’s pretty much textbook right wing.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

This is just pure intellectual dishonesty on your part, and frankly not something I'm going to dignify with debating. Get your head out of your own arse.

Don't worry about it. You lost your dignity with the post prior to this one, so you have nothing to lose.

 

[harms]

Communism is basically an extreme version of socialism, which is to the far end of the left wing.

That’s true. The only issue is, none of the “communist” regimes were actually communist. I mean even officially USSR was only supposed to “build communism” around 1980 (as per Khrushchev’s announcement during 1961’s party gathering). And unofficially, they were never even going in the right direction — same as China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and any other “communist” regimes that there were. They were totalitarian regimes that used some of the communist rhetoric.

 

[Halftrack]

Oh common, you can't think of dark leftist ideals? How about forced allegiance to the collective? Forcible confiscation of wealth? Inhibition of free speech? Like I said, you can't claim racial purity as a right wing idea if you deny the existence of extremes at the opposite end. The majority of conservatives are perfectly reasonable people at heart. This equating the other side with evil (as is done on both sides) is part of the problem.

I wanted to know what you thought of as such. All of those are fairly hardcore communist ideals, and in my experience not very common among leftists in general (though you probably think "don't say hateful shit" as inhibition of free speech, which is a common ideal among leftists). Meanwhile, on the right, discrimination of minorities is often proudly communicated as wanted policies, as are financial policies that will lead to further concentration of wealth at the top. Erosion of women's right, cuts in public spending, attacks on workers' rights and extreme individualism are common as well. Freedom of religion, as long as that religion is Christianity. Most of these are extremely common, even among run-of-the-mill conservatives.

In the US, it's a failure of democracy that's part of the cause for Trumpism. On many levels, but mostly the fact that a very tiny portion of society has all the power and wealth. Trump just plays into this feeling of helplessness by pointing anger towards the classic scape goats (communists, immigrants, feminists, etc). I'm not disregarding racism, xenophobia, christian extremism and other factors, but underneath it all lay significant flaws in the system that enhance these prejudices.

So in the US, economic liberalism and the resulting inequalities lead to Trumpism. To me, that reads like right-wing politics causing even more right-wing politics. Had nothing to do with any kind of social democracy or leftism.

Thats' pretty much how they still are today, as are most Western European nations (Belgium ticks all of these boxes too, for example). Yet there are growing nationalist and xenophobic movements in all (or most) of these countries, so either these utopias are very shallow or there's surely a better form.

Again, not utopias, just the closest thing to one. Still pretty far off.

I guess what nets the Nordics points over the rest of western Europe is comparatively low wealth inequality, a strong humanitarian profile, environmental awareness and a bunch of other buzzwords. Whether deserved or undeserved, they've at least done a pretty good job of presenting themselves in a positive light.

And you'll not that I didn't call it a utopia, nor did I say I thought it to be one. I said it was probably the closest the world's had to what a leftist would consider a utopia. Not close, closest.

 

[Botim]

He’s basically an old fashioned monarch ruling over a hyper nationalist state with very limited civil rights. That’s pretty much textbook right wing.

So you can't be a left wing nationalist?

And what kind of right wing ideology strives to limit the basic civil rights of its own citizens?

Authoritarianism isn't an ideal of either side, it's a consequence of taking an idea to the extreme.

 

[harms]

No it isn't. Is Kim Jong Un right wing? No, it's just inevitable that any ideology thought through to the extreme results in authoritarianism. It's the only way to enforce a system that will likely upset a large part of the population.

What do you do if someone doesn't want to share their wealth? You take it from them by force. That's exactly what happened in Russia, Cambodia, etc

Is there even anything remotely left about North Korea?
1. It’s a society with a strict cast system where your right for an education, profession, place of residence and, well, everything else is determined by birth and you can only go down on that ladder if you or your close relatives get arrested
2. Their official ideology, Juche, is based (alongside the God-like role of Kims) on idea of racial superiority of Korean race and a strict following of Korean tradition (in North Korea’s interpretation of them)
3. All the wealth is accumulated by the highest social class (party elites & military)

Etc. I’d struggle to name even one regime that is further on the right on the scale than DPRK to be honest.

 

[Botim]

I wanted to know what you thought of as such. All of those are fairly hardcore communist ideals, and in my experience not very common among leftists in general (though you probably think "don't say hateful shit" as inhibition of free speech, which is a common ideal among leftists). Meanwhile, on the right, discrimination of minorities is often proudly communicated as wanted policies, as are financial policies that will lead to further concentration of wealth at the top. Erosion of women's right, cuts in public spending, attacks on workers' rights and extreme individualism are common as well. Freedom of religion, as long as that religion is Christianity. Most of these are extremely common, even among run-of-the-mill conservatives.

A lot of the things you mention are very dependant on your own political standpoint. Ask someone on the other side and "erosion of women's rights" becomes "protection of unborn children", "discrimination of minorities" becomes "caring for your own needy people first", "tax breaks for the 1%" becomes "job creation", etc.

The biggest problem on the left right now is the one you mention: inhibition of free speech, which commonly devolves in outright antipathy or hatred towards people who don't subscribe to the same ideals.

So in the US, economic liberalism and the resulting inequalities lead to Trumpism. To me, that reads like right-wing politics causing even more right-wing politics. Had nothing to do with any kind of social democracy or leftism.

I never blamed them on leftwing ideas. Like I said, I vote Green. Try and read some of Theodro Adorno's work. The crux of it is that it's foolish to present fascism as some kind of extreme that has no relation to (or cause in) the rest of society.

Again, not utopias, just the closest thing to one. Still pretty far off.

I guess what nets the Nordics points over the rest of western Europe is comparatively low wealth inequality, a strong humanitarian profile, environmental awareness and a bunch of other buzzwords. Whether deserved or undeserved, they've at least done a pretty good job of presenting themselves in a positive light.

And you'll not that I didn't call it a utopia, nor did I say I thought it to be one. I said it was probably the closest the world's had to what a leftist would consider a utopia. Not close, closest.

Fair enough.

 

[Botim]

Is there even anything remotely left about North Korea?
1. It’s a society with a strict cast system where your right for an education, profession, place of residence and, well, everything else is determined by birth and you can only go down on that ladder if you or your close relatives get arrested
2. Their official ideology, Juche, is based (alongside the God-like role of Kims) on idea of racial superiority of Korean race and a strict following of Korean tradition (in North Korea’s interpretation of them)
3. All the wealth is accumulated by the highest social class (party elites & military)

Etc. I’d struggle to name even one regime that is further on the right on the scale than DPRK to be honest.

You conveniently left out my last sentence. Show me a right wing politician that strives for such a society?

NK is what any idea taken to its extreme devolves into.

The left wing idea of the collective above the individual which is the basis of communism very easily leads to limits on personal rights. Anything you do has to be of benefit to the collective (the state).

 

[JPRouve]

That’s true. The only issue is, none of the “communist” regimes were actually communist. I mean even officially USSR was only supposed to “build communism” around 1980 (as per Khrushchev’s announcement during 1961’s party gathering). And unofficially, they were never even going in the right direction — same as China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and any other “communist” regimes that there were. They were totalitarian regimes that used some of the communist rhetoric.

We had that conversation with @Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær few months ago. No one has ever transitioned from a capitalist model to a communist one because everyone remained at the authoritarian phase.

 

[calodo2003]

Dropping a knee is offensive. According to this twat.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

She certainly seems such the utter cnutish asshole.

 

[calodo2003]

That's the point: I have my stance, you have your stance. I have no problem with you or anyone else being a leftist, as I'm sure you have your resons for that. What I have a problem with is leftists (or anyone else with a political conviction) expecting to get to ram their agenda down other people's throats against their will, in places, situations and venues where it isn't welcome (like in sports, which is supposed to be an apolitical arena for obvious reasons).

I even used to have a problem with football arenas marking "Veterans' Day", as that too has political connotations that doesn't belong in sports - a lot of people think the US/UK lead wars in the Middle East have been illegal for one. But at least that can be defended with the military being a national institution, and hence "for everyone" so to speak.

But BLM isn't for everyone. It's only for people with a particular set of political convictions, and a particular set of views on reality. So this entire BLM embarrassment is so glaringly obviously political that it's taking political weaponising of sports to a whole new level not seen since the Summer Olympics of 1936.



Just repeating that doesn't make it any more true.

I bet you almost regurgitate at the sight of those bastards raising their fists at the 68 Olympics too.