Dave Rubin On The "Regressive Left."

Post Reply New Topic

Except these things are relevant. When I posted a critique of Rubin's content, you accused me of not having watched his videos. Except I have watched his videos.

Here's what Rubin's video says:
1) The left is bad
2) Liberalism is good
3) Leftism is the biggest threat to Western society today
4) You are part of the regressive left if you support intersectional feminism (he then continues to misrepresent what intersectional feminism is).

My rebuttal is that intersectional feminism is a liberal philosophy. It's an essential part of liberalism. It doesn't value the group over the individual, it recognises that people's characteristics affect how they are treated. Rubin isn't standing up for liberalism - he's standing up for conservative leftism, and that's shown by the people he puts in his "New Centre", who are nearly always anti-liberals. It is Rubin who is the regressive leftist who is fighting true liberalism and progressivism. But this isn't just a case of Rubin having bad definitions - his ideas are actively harmful. This is a man who derides systematic discrimination and happily allies himself with the worst of humanity against the best of humanity.

Look, I get it. Having our ideas challenged hurts us. That's as true for me as it is for you. But I'd appreciate it, and it would probably help you, if you acknowledge that I'm not just raging against a man I don't understand. I am at least as well informed as you are, and I'm offering substantive critiques. You don't have to like them, you can by all means choose to disagree, you can think I'm completely wrong - but I think denying that I am offering counterpoints is just hurting yourself in the long run.



This is clearly wrong. You live in one of the most polarised countries in the world, the differences between the two parties are stark and growing and impossible for an informed person to fail to realise. It is extremely easy to tell which party a US lawmaker represents by their voting record. It also, frankly, contradicts your own claim that America is too polarised with people just batting for teams.

The Republican Party is in favour of low taxes, low government spending, cutting regulation, a strong military, deporting new Americans, the war on drugs, isolationism, and opposed to reproductive rights, combating discrimination, worker's rights, and active steps to cut carbon emissions. In terms of specific international policies, the Republican Party favours war in Iran and North Korea and under George W. Bush started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democratic Party is in favour of higher taxes, high government spending (including, perhaps most notably, stimulatory spending, as well as healthcare for all), a regulated market, maintaining rather than strengthening the military, expanding civil rights, protecting new Americans, legalising some drugs, reproductive rights, free trade, global co-operation, combatting discrimination, supporting worker's rights, and meeting the US's international commitments under the Paris Agreement in order to fight climate change. The Democratic Party supports peace agreements ahead of warfare, as seen by Obama's approach to Cuba, North Korea, Israel, and most notably Iran.

The differences between the parties are huge both in theory and practice. They advocate for radically different visions for America, and those visions have been borne out when they take office. Your government literally shuts down every so often because your lawmakers can't cross the partisan divide. If you think the two parties are similar then you either place an unusually high emphasis on a fringe issue, or haven't been paying attention to domestic politics for the last thirty years. It's not 1989 any more. If you want to get mad at American politics then stop pretending everyone is the same and start complaining that they can't work together any more.

I know I said I wouldn't be indulging you any further, but I'll amend that to "as much." I'll keep this very short.

You never actually responded to the assertions in Rubin's video;, rather you went on a long diatribe explaining how he only bashes the left, he's not what he says he is, he has these bad people on, etc, etc. I've presented many examples of why I believe Rubin is spot on. I can give plenty more, if you like.

On the differences between Dems and Pubs: All you have to do is compare the GWB presidency to Obama's to understand what I'm talking about. Obama pretty much continued all of Bush's policies. He ramped up the surveillance state, continued the abhorrent foreign interventionist policies, did nothing for the environment, (he was actually worse than Bush on that front) and basically did nothing to disguise himself from the Republicans. On all the major issues, that count, there is no difference. I realize you don't live in this country, so I'll forgive you for not knowing these things. I've lived here my whole life and have watched the Democrats shift to the right since I was young, and now we have a one-party system with two neoliberal factions.

Pointing out the polarization of America is poor evidence for your argument. The differences between left and right are largely cultural and not reflected by actual policies. But most American are about as misinformed as you are. For example, a large majority of Democrats still look favorable on Obama, while large percentage of Republicans despise him. It should be the other way around. If Pubs loved Bush, they should love Obama -- and Dems should despise him for the same reasons. Republicans attack Obama on points that have no basis in reality. I attack for things that do have a basis in reality. Americans are fed a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation to maintain the partisan divide.

I'll wait your arrival to discuss the topic at hand. Until then, you have lost the debate by default since you never really bothered to show up in the first place.

P.S. Yeah, I guess that wasn't so short, My apologies.

Walrus knows whereof he speaks!

Agreed about the difference in parties being evident, but I'll make a few quibbles on various details:

Free Trade: This was the "both parties" stance and is now being opposed by members of both parties. In general republicans subscribe to a non-interference economic policy, with which protectionism is fundamentally incompatible. Democrats subscribe to an interventionalist economic policy but have historically favored free trade. Donald Trump has come out hard against free trade, but that is in contrast to the previous decades of Republican policy. Skepticism of free trade abounds in certain Democratic circles as well.

Hawk vs. Dove: Another split that cuts across party lines. Members of both parties are for interventionist foreign policy, while members of both parties are for pacifism non-interference. Contrasting Obama's tactics and Bush's tactics is not equivalent to contrasting Republican positions and Democratic positions. Rand Paul will argue passionately for withdrawal from the Middle East whereas Hillary Clinton was significantly more hawkish than Obama (who engaged in Libya and Syria with military force where it was previously not applied). Donald Trump has taken a bellicose rhetorical position, but is reducing military force in the middle east and engaged North Korea in direct negotiations. The old saying used to be: "Republicans want a large army that sits at home, Democrats want a small army they send all over the world" but that's no longer accurate as neither party has a cohesive foreign policy vision. When VegetableMan is saying there is little difference between the parties this is what I believe he is referring to.

"Deporting new americans" "protecting new americans": I'm going to take a minute to call out how rhetorically biased this characterization is. Every country on the planet has immigration laws. Every country on the planet deports people in violation of those laws. The Democratic position on immigration is incoherent at best. In many ways it's much like the Republican position on healthcare. They condemn hardline immigration policies that enforce current immigration laws, but don't offer an alternative. They oppose funding a border wall because "it's racist." When asked whether they believe we should have open borders they'll get rather quiet. When asked whether violent criminals should be deported most will say yes. The Obama administration deported over 2 million illegal immigrants earning him the nickname "Deporter in Chief." As far as I can tell the wedge issue on immigration between republicans and democrats are path to citizenship and a border wall. Democrats favor a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants, while republicans generally oppose a path to citizenship. Republicans favor increased security measures at the border while Democrats favor maintaining current security measures.

Just for fun, I will concede to all Walrus's arguments. Yes, there are obviously many great differences between Dems and Pubs, as evidenced by how much things change when you swing the pendulum from one side to the other. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) I'll concede that truly do live in an echo chamber, and that I am every bit as partisan as the next guy. I'll concede that Rubin is a liberal hating hack. I'll concede to all that.

"Whew* That felt good! I feel cleansed!

Alright, let's get this puppy back on track, shall we? I'd now like to discuss the "regressive left." That would be a very fresh change, indeed, since it was what we were supposed to be discussing all along. Why don't we just leave Rubin out of the conversation altogether. f**k him! I don't need that liberal hating hack to tell me anything!

Any takers?

Could you define what you mean by "regressive left." I have a feeling that phrase means different things to different people.

To me, it means our political discourse has regressed to the point where if you don't go along with the cultural authoritarianism of the left, you be harassed, pressured for say something that isn't deemed PC, and even threatened. It is a definite regression which threatens free speech and the exchange of opposing viewpoints.

The Nike Betsy Ross sneaker fiasco is a prime example. Last year, a sportscaster was forced to apologize when he used the term "Chinese in the armor" when referring to a Japanese athlete. Well, you can't use a common phrase we all understand because it had that word in it. (Turns out, the commentator who made that remark was actually of Chinese descent.)

These type of incidents are so pervasive and nauseating. I'm not surprised there has been so much deflection in this thread because it's pretty damn hard to refute that PC culture has gotten so absurd.

Stephen Fry gave an excellent speech against political correctness, last year.

I was called a “Nazi collaborator” by a far-left person. I am a centrist.

It’s as if there is nothing in between anarcho-communism and fascism.

What's the context behind that? Why did he/she call you a "Nazi collaborator?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... 8b00bf8da5

Sorry, I can't access the article, since I'm not a subscriber. I did see the title, though. Would you mind explaining to me, in your own words, why you believe "political correctness is not so bad after all?" I'd love to continue the discussion.

i don't think it's all bad or good . I think some who rail against it just want an open goal to be as anti social and offensive as possible . Others may have more intelligent reasons to question it. Such as it's a means of restricting free speech , and that the best approach is to let people with dubious opinions speak openly and show themselves up .

The professor mentioned in the article -

I think some things are offensive to any civilised,decent and reasonable person . Other things may be more tactless than deliberately offensive. It's not easy always to distinguish between the two.

Out of respect for VM's desires I won't follow up substantially on any previous points, though I do think there is discussion still to be had there. Antrax as usual made some good points, particularly on how positions shift over time and on how extreme ends still overlap on some issues. On that front, I will note that the "rhetorically biased" phrase "New Americans" comes from Ronald Reagan's final speech before leaving office.

I tried to look up the "Chinese in the armour" incident online and I found a few. I would agree that the phrase is often innocuous, but it did seem like some of the examples were genuinely insensitive. The one that closest fitted the description you gave actually came from seven years ago so might not be the right one, but it did get some extra attention earlier this year. It's a picture of a Chinese basketball player captioned "Chinese in the armour". That comes across as a racially crass attempt at punnery. I believe the writer when he says that this was unintentional, and I think he should probably have kept his job, but at best it is a deeply embarrassing oversight.

One article mentioned that one of ESPN's commentators used the same phrase to refer to the same player during the same match. He apologised and kept his job. I suspect that controversy over his remarks only arose because of the simultaneous crass example.

Personally I think "political correctness" is by and large another way of saying "good manners". Yeah, you probably shouldn't call bundles of sticks "fa***ts" if there is any risk of you being misunderstood. Just be polite and considerate and you'll be fine.

I do have a problem with, for want of a better word, witchhunts. I think corporations routinely fail to provide support to employees who have made an ill-advised comment, and I think people take single ill-advised comments too seriously and aren't willing enough to forgive. But these witchhunts aren't really associated with any one political ideology. The people who got James Gunn fired from Disney for tweets he'd made many years beforehand were Trump supporters angry that he'd criticised Trump. The people who got Munroe Berghoff removed from her role as an LGBT+ ambassador for Childline were conservatives. Turning Point publish attack ads against professors who they say are hostile to conservatism. Several examples of black students being racially abused for giving political views are listed here. I don't give these examples to deflect from or excuse progressive examples, merely to illustrate that this is an issue of humans being horrid to each other, not an ideology getting out of hand. It's partially an internet issue, it's partially due to the increasing polarisation of top-level politics, I'm sure there are many other things that fall into it.

So while I am concerned about parts of what you identify as the "regressive left", I don't think these things are by any means exclusive to the left, and nor do I want to see political correctness dismissed as a bad thing. It's a good thing, and is now more important than ever.

“Chinese in the armor” has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the racial/ethnic slur against people of Chinese ethnicity.

I will continue to use the phrase when applicable.

Unless somebody explicitly states a feeling of offense about it. In that case, I will apologize, and not use the phrase in front of that person.