[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree that the left are rejecting liberalism, though for the most part they don't seem to be aware they are.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but can I ask you how much material you've read from the supposed contemporary left-wing? Indigenous scholars, feminists, anarchists, etc.? These people are very aware of the values they're rejecting.

However, I think it's a huge mistake on their part. And not only because I'm an unabashed liberal. But because it's liberalism itself that has laid the groundwork for all of the progress we've made on social issues. And now that we've benefited from a society that tolerated dissenting views in their infancy - views that were not long ago very much in the minority and regarded as offensive by the majority - they want to pull up the drawbridge and defend the new pieties against dissenting speech and ideas.

I don't think that's it at all. Obviously there's some of that as there is with any kind of fanaticism or extremism, but it's not nearly as exclusive or prominent to the left as you make it sound. What dissenting views are we talking about here exactly? If we're talking about racist or homophobic language, there's an element where the supposed ideals of free speech inadvertently end up suppressing the voices of marginalized people. We're also not really talking about dissenting viewpoints when we're talking about discriminatory or oppressive statements, as these have largely been the more widely-held views until very recently, and have been given enough of an audience as is.

I think you also have to consider that when people are dismissive of dissenting opinion, it can be a reasoned dismissal. A right to free speech isn't the right to a captive and respectful audience, or any audience at all for that matter. It's okay, for instance, for minorities to feel that cultural appropriation is wrong without being obligated to listen to someone try to explain why they shouldn't be offended by it.

What the left never seems to ask themselves is why, if the West was historically such a patriarchal, authoritarian, sexist, and reactionary culture, is it the most progressive culture on earth today? Why didn't feminism, gay rights, and racial equality take root in China, India, or Egypt?

This is a bit of a non sequitur, don't you think?

The answer seems evident to me. The Enlightenment and liberalism. Empiricism, individual liberty, and tolerance. But the trade-off of a society where you're allowed to defy norms and pursue your own notions of happiness is that you're going to rub shoulders with a lot of people who have different notions of happiness. And some of them are going to say and do things that make you uncomfortable. The freedom to say as you please comes with an implicit understanding that you will hear things you don't like. And if that's scary, if you want to circumscribe speech and behaviour to enforce peace and conformity, then you better understand that those tools of enforcement can - and almost certainly will - be turned on you some day.

Come on now. We circumscribe speech and behaviour to enforce peace and conformity in almost all aspects of everyday life. There is almost universal acceptance that there are reasonable limits on just about any right. At minimum you are expected to be accountable for your words and actions.

Then there's the left who are obsessed with policing language and representation in pop culture, and the gender of superheroes. But maybe that's just our culture - economics and math are hard, and class remains a taboo subject, so pop culture ephemera becomes the battleground.

Pop culture and language are influential and pervasive. Why wouldn't people be concerned with crafting both in a manner that doesn't perpetuate damaging cultural norms and stereotypes?