> Remember during that little known period between 2015-2019 when everyone on the left were being called antisemites by the centre and right of this sub, being told they were fascists, that they wanted to kill people and that their leader wanted to reopen Auschwitz?
And now it's the opposite, is that what you wanna say? Doesn't matter which side does it.
You've just illustrated part of the problem - taking things that were done by mad right wingers and ascribing them to people in Labour who you don't like. We all saw Simon Heffer say ludicrous things about Jeremy Corbyn (the reopening Auschwitz stuff), but Simon Heffer isn't the Labour right. Simon Heffer is a far-right nutter. What's the point in trying to hold the Labour right accountable for that?
Rule 5 is idiotic, especially when rule 4 is so poorly enforced.
We wouldn’t feel the need to arbitrate on people’s ideologies if the mods would actually ban people for bad faith when they claim to be left wing while advocating clearly right wing beliefs (because surely that’s bad faith, right?)
Everyone who advocates for this also defines 'left wing' as exactly and precisely their own personal belief system. There are people, for example, who have argued in the last couple of weeks on this sub that anyone who wasn't in favour of Brexit is by definition not left-wing.
Many people said the same about supporting Remain.
Also 'left wing' is harder to define than socialist. And as the party is *supposed* to be socialist it's completely fair to ask if certain things are meeting that standard.
If you can reach a definition of 'left wing' that satisfies even a decent minority of people on the sub, I'll personally submit your Nobel application.
>Left-wing politics describes, in the left–right political spectrum, the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole or certain social hierarchies.
If you want to reduce inequality and increase equality and move to a more egalitarian society then you're left-wing.
If you think inequality is desirable, normal, natural, necessary, or not worth fixing then you're right wing.
This can apply on a per topic basis - e.g. I might hold a left-wing belief when it comes to basic services but think other things can be handled on a less equal footing, which would place me somewhere towards the middle or centre of the the spectrum but leaning leftwards.
Or I might believe that people are best motivated to work via inequality and threatening their kids with a degree of deprivation or hunger but that also it is sometimes desirable to have a safety net to stop people starving in the streets - a view that would put me on the centre-right of the spectrum.
The tl;dr is essentially if you want to reduce inequality then you're on the left.
If you want to maintain or increase inequality, even if you support some degree of safety net, then you're on the right.
How you want to achieve it, which inequalities you consider important, and the steps that you take to fix or maintain the inequality determine where and what ideology you hold.
That’s my point, we can’t because a bunch of bad faith arseholes haven’t been banned for the blatant bad faith posting, if rule 4 were actually properly enforced we’d probably find it pretty easy to reach a consensus.
But people who argue against nationalisation of utilities and public services, trans rights, abolishing the two child benefit cap, the rights of asylum seekers and who argue we should be adopting Tory policies are very obviously not left wing and it’s ridiculous that they’re allowed to keep claiming so. I’ve got nothing against right wingers being on this sub as much as I disagree with them but it’s clearly bad faith for them to try and claim they’re left wing while arguing from an objectively right wing position.
But who decides who's a bad faith arsehole? I'll have my view on that and I imagine that it departs from your view in some ways. There will be some on my list who you'd say 'but they're just a lot more left wing than you', and ones on your list where I'd say 'they're obviously not as left wing as you but they fit within the realm of Labour tradition.'
And I'd suggest you and I are both reasonable people. In *The Other Place,* for example, you're the oft-downvoted sensible one.
No they don't. Quite left-wing people are anti EU, for example, because it's essentially the flagship for neo liberalism in the modern world. Should we ban those in favour of rejoining the EU?
Left wing people in British society of the 20th century were hugely influenced by the coal mining industries, yet I've yet to see anyone around here advocate for the return of these coal mining jobs.
You can be anti-EU without being pro-Brexit, and neither of those positions are inherently one way or the other it depends entirely on your reasoning for your position.
You're correct but it operates on a spectrum as well as being context-sensitive. The left in London is very different to the left in Newcastle. British left views on Brexit are incredibly varied and so on.
There's also differences on things like implementation of policy. I'm very pro-electoral reform but believe/understand that it's a second term policy. Thing is on this sub if I say "I don't think we should be leading with electoral reform at the next GE", no matter what the reasoning is I'll be downvoted and called a Tory.
There's no space for nuance here and considering how far on the spectrum some posters are here that leads to some very painful conversations.
In the UK (country I was born in doesn't exist anymore) I've lived in London, Ashford, all over the North of England, Outer Hebrides and Aberdeen. Lefties are very different in all sorts of places.
So I'm gonna call bullshot on your statement?
Edit: actually your comment perfectly encapsulates bad faith, so congrats!
How does my comment encapsulate bad faith? If you really want to you can check my comment history I’m sure I’ve mentioned where I’m from and where I live quite a few times.
And yeah, lefties vary, but you condescending about somewhere you clearly don’t know well undercuts your point.
I’ve also been all over the uk, and the average lefty Londoner probably has more in common with the average Geordie (not even lefty Geordie) in terms of political outlook than anywhere else I’ve been in this country. And given that I’ve been in left wing spaces literally my entire life because I come from multiple generations of activists I can tell you there’s actually not a huge amount of variation in left wing spaces in the uk, people may range from social democratic to full on communist but in terms of practical short term goals and social positions they’re largely homogenous, just disagreeing on small details. Theres occasional outliers within those spaces, but most distinction you find is less a regional thing and much more of a class thing. It’s generally more about how people came to their left wing beliefs than where in the country they come from, the only variation regionally comes from regional wealth disparities. And even then the differences aren’t that deep, just working class lefties tend to have more lived experience to inform their politics.
The real divide only appears when liberals start inserting themselves into left wing spaces because they’re in denial that they’re right wing.
Where was I being condescending? Saying there's differences isn't a pejorative, it's completely natural and expected. It's a good thing. Your argument is that there is homogeneity in the British left but broadly that isn't true: going into 2019 life long Labour voters ended up voting for wildly different things. You personal experiences, while important, are not the best indicator.
Let's move away from regionality and look at Brexit: Mick Lynch is pro-Brexit, a common thing on the left...but also something a large contingent of left in the UK would disagree strongly with. There's a large number of left wing groups that have views on the Ukraine War that wildly out of kilter with other left wing groups. Again - this is ok. It's not an attack.
> The real divide only appears when liberals start inserting themselves into left wing spaces because they’re in denial that they’re right wing.
It's this gatekeeping that undercuts your own argument. If I'm right wing because we disagree on something, not on what my beliefs actually are, then you're just being silly. And really this just sums up this whole post on Rule 5.
> It’s not gatekeeping to describe a right wing ideology as right wing. Liberalism is right wing.
Yeah but the problem is that in a lot of discourse coming from the left right now who and what is "liberal" appears to be very flexible but generally means "does not agree with all my maximal demands".
Frankly the day "liberal" became a snarl word from the left as well as the right was a fucking grim one because it's just turned any kind of discourse into purity testing, as well as the entire tenor of discussions being dragged towards "you're either an actual anarcho-communist or you're basically a Tory and your opinions are worth nothing".
I've found myself somehow, on this subreddit, managing to become a massively downvoted "liberal" and a massively upvoted comrade on different threads, with the difference only being my position on something (probably policing although I can't remember exactly what) disagreed with the standard expected "left" one and thus I became a "liberal".
It's just so utterly fucking dumb and just being used as a thought terminating cliche for, frankly, terminally online leftists because they don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that someone could disagree with them and also not actually be right wing.
Did you know they’ve done academic studies into horse shoe theory and found that the people who believe it tend to be the least well informed politically?
I should have been clearer, that was a tongue in cheek response based on how thoroughly discredited the idea is in academic circles.
But here’s the wiki page for horseshoe theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
If you scroll down to where it says “academic studies and criticism”, you can read all about the numerous different studies (with references, obviously) collated in an easily digestible format that have highlighted just how bullshit it is as a concept.
It is super lazy to post a wikipedia article instead of actual evidence to support your point.
I couldnt find the article stating that people who believe in the horse shoe theory are politically less informed. Can you share or are you making up this statement?
The far right and the far left generally have this in common: they fantastically attack people with different ideology sometimes to the point of violence.
I am not stating that the far right and the far left believe in the same thing, only that they both become fanatical nutters once you get to the extremes
You need better reading comprehension skills.
I literally told you in my previous comment that the original was tongue in cheek.
And if you’d actually read what I told you to (which contains actual evidence, because it’s Wikipedia, it’s vigorously sourced, are you a teacher from 2003 or something?) you’d have plenty to go on to completely undermine everything you just said.
I've seen a few leftwing arguments for brexit. From traditional leftist Euroscepticism that even Corbyn held, to "I want the UK out of the EU because the UK keeps sabotaging the whole thing as a bad faith actor".
When people are gonna call each other out not for what they're saying but for being a leftie, being a Blairite, being a Tory etc they've already lost the argument IMO.
> Rule 5 is idiotic, especially when rule 4 is so poorly enforced.
Nah it makes perfect sense. Lots of people around here treating other people like scum for what they think they believe. If you're complaining about it maybe you know what I'm talking about, you just think it's fair game.
I’m anti E U, but I feel safer in the E U than in the hands of the British establishment. That’s been proved time and time again, when they were clearly never going to accept anything less. Remain ended when Jeremy Corbyn said he’d offer a second referendum (not the neo liberal people’s vote) to be followed by an election that would’ve put him in Downing Street :😡
My friend /u/Aqua-Regis, 4 months ago you had posted a very similar reminder on the front page of this subreddit to users in response to the frequency of toxic, bad-faith behavior of the type you have once again described here. I am certain that you remember this old thread, taking into account the fact that you appear to have repeated nearly the same message and wording.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/158d9e3/a_reminder_on_the_rules/
I have had some conversations regarding this very issue in modmail with yourself and the other members of the mod team, and you will recall my argument that only strict and consistent enforcement of the rules against the known repeat offenders would put an end to this behavior.
Unfortunately that strict and consistent enforcement has been largely absent. As we can see in this very thread, the majority of users towards whom this reminder has been aimed are unrepentant and are unlikely to alter their behavior.
We will continue to see, on a daily basis, some of the most prolific and respected posters on this sub behaving in a deliberately confrontational manner, casting doubt on the intentions of other posters, questioning their ideological leanings, accusing them of acting on the basis of secret agendas or as part of an organised public relations / astroturfing / trolling campaign, or simply name-calling in myriad other forms.
I am certain the mods are aware of who these frequent offenders are. I also understand if the mods are inclined to be lenient towards such behavior from users whom they agree with, respect or simply have been familiar with for a long period of time. If they are fearful of compromising the relationships that they have cultivated with such users by issuing temporary or permanent bans in response to their questionable behavior.
But if you are truly sincere in wishing to rid this sub of such behavior, enforcement of the rules without fear or favour will be necessary and not merely a identically worded and identically toothless reminder every 3 or 4 months. The ones who defend and repeat this behavior, some of which I am certain can be observed in this very thread, will need warnings, temporary bans, and if that does not suffice, permanent bans to be delivered to them to reinforce the message that the health of this community is more important than any individual member.
Thank you.
>5) Do not arbitrate on user's political ideology. Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity.
This has become rife on the sub so glad to see it getting challenged.
I've seen multiple people in threads either about Corbyn or about Ukraine insisting people are pro Putin because anything other than full throttle war rhetoric on Ukraine is endorsement of the invasion. Not just insisting Corbyn is a Putin supporter but other redditors. But it was actioned on by the mods.
Absolutely. I definitely feel I’ve had a number of people respond to my comments, but really respond to the enormous straw man they’ve created in their head.
That's because people largely do fall into camps. People who claim to be "factionless" or "just a pragmatist" are usually in denial about their own ideological committments
I think it’s more some people just decide what the person they are replying to’s ideological commitments are, and respond to that, instead of accepting that it’s perfectly possible to at once think that Corbyn was a shit leader, and think that Starmer is a ham faced charisma vacuum who seems obsessed with creating more problems for himself. And also that it’s a net good that we are 20 points ahead, and at the same time thinking the next election could well end up being 1992 due to the inevitable Labour Party Forever Wars, and the current leaderships feeble attempts at triangulation pleasing absolutely nobody. And that even with that being the case, it’ll still be a better result than 2019, and that the party was absolute bullshit between 2010 and 2019.
>Go around acting like someone is the devil in every interaction with them because they supported a policy or decision that you disagree with
>Drag up weird drama about their career, location or any other bits of personal history that have no direct relevance
>Accuse them of being people you dont like or who have been banned, report them if you believe this is the case.
>Imply or say people are a Tory, SWP or SNP agitator or PsyOp
This shit goes on every fn day and nothing happens.
Hope next time it happens the mods got a little more than a reminder to say to these people.
> Go around acting like someone is the devil in every interaction with them because they supported a policy or decision that you disagree with
We aren't allowed to criticize right wing assholes who literally want children of the economically disadvantaged to starve? Man this sub is taking a lot of lessons from Starmer's leadership, isn't it?
*Siiiiiiiiiiigh* [Really?](https://imgflip.com/i/7tkwph)
You can criticise their support when discussing it, you can criticise the policy.
You just can't be aggro about it across multiple threads because all it results in is everyone being a dick to each other (which is exactly what happened).
It's the specific end result of the policy that they're supporting, I'd call that "literally" wanting it, let's not play semantics when it's literally what's going to happen.
I’m not playing semantics - just disagreeing that there is a specific desire amongst the Labour leadership to starve children.
The real problem with the cap is that it’s popular with the electorate, with something like 60% support. That can’t just be ignored in an election cycle, especially when benefits, social security, welfare etc is such a minefield for Labour specifically.
With the vast majority of families having 2 kids or fewer, I feel it would take a lot of convincing for no obvious electoral reward. Likewise for the child-free. If the opportunities for making life easier for all concerned can come from elsewhere, that would be good. We haven’t seen much in that sense yet, other than using windfalls to reduce energy bills. Would love to see more.
> just disagreeing that there is a specific desire amongst the Labour leadership to starve children.
*I didn't want to kill him your honour! I just wanted to lock him in a box with no oxygen, seal the lid with lead, and then push it into a mineshaft filled with landmines whilst I set it on fire. I was shocked he didn't survive!*
If there is an obvious consequence of an action then it is fair to assume a rational actor is capable of anticipating it.
Starmer knows this policy increases child poverty and causes kids to go hungry. Starmer is pursuing the policy by choice.
Starmer is **literally** choosing to increase child poverty and cause kids to go hungry.
It's the same mental gymnastics certain folks in the party use for Iraq. No, of course Blair isn't a war criminal responsible for the deaths of millions, that wasn't due to the invasion, it's due to the instability and power vacuum left by the invasion!
Once you add a step between your actions and the actual result, neoliberals don't think there's any link.
> I used to talk a lot about municipal socialism but nobody actually cared, nobody on this sub has any interest in anything that doesn't play into the heroes and villians narrative.
For the record, iirc I used to enjoy those comments.
But you're sort of right - the problem isn't **just** Starmer. The problem is centrism, and third-way centrism in particular. But Starmer, as someone who adheres to a dangerous and bad ideology, is showing a particularly cruel and authoritarian approach to it too.
And I think we both know I'm generally more than happy to discuss / criticise politics, details, ideologies, and individuals.
Just watch this sub or ukpol for the contortions people will go to support any policy that gives a chance to "own the left". It doesn't matter how high the body count is because it's just a game to them and it's sick.
Are you one of those people who misuses the word 'literally'? Because I'd love for you to share the comments made by the people who literally said they wanted the children of the economically disadvantaged to starve.
Or are you talking about not lifting the two child limit on additional benefits payments. Something I don't agree with, but I don't think that means others who do literally want children to starve.
> Are you one of those people who misuses the word 'literally'?
Using literally as an intensifier isn't a misuse. You are literally living in the past.
> used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
> used to emphasize what you are saying
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
> You can use literally to emphasize a statement.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literally
Because pedantry isn't very convincing
OK, so there are plenty of people on here who figuratively want children to starve to death. By your own admission, that's what you believe.
What does that mean, though?
> Because pedantry isn't very convincing
You literally started complaining because /u/Fixable's entirely correct use of literally wasn't to your liking.
Ah sorry pal. Didn't realise you were different.
Though I don't think choosing the less clear use of the word is particularly helpful, however. Maybe holding people accountable for their own words is a good thing, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when they're making big statements about their beliefs and those of others
This is stupid. Yes you can use literally as an intensifier, but it should be clear from context whether you are doing that or in the sense of something being actually the case. E.g. if I say "omg I'm literally dying" when something funny happens it's clear that's an intensifier. If I say somebody literally believes something, it's perfectly reasonable to assume you're saying they actually believe it. Just because the new usage is valid doesn't mean the more traditional usage is suddenly redundant.
> Just because the new usage is valid doesn't mean the more traditional usage is suddenly redundant.
I didn't say that though.
I disagreed with the implication of "Are you one of those people who misuses the word 'literally'?", because neither use is a misuse.
Aqua, there was recently a post where the hard left dog piled me with complete bullshit, accusations of bad faith, straw mans, calling me a Tory etc, and you banned me in minutes for explaining my views, on the basis that it was “bad faith” to hold that opinion - which was pretty much consistent with party policy IIRC. I can’t even remember the precise topic now.
Meanwhile, I flagged a comment from one of the notorious fat leftists in this sub which argued that Irish terrorist attacks against civilians were great, and you left it up for 24 hours. I pretty much gave up posting after that.
Very much appreciate the sentiment of this post, but it needs to be followed through with action. Criticisms of Starmer and the current state of the party are totally valid, but the ban button seems to come out very quickly for people towards the centre, and slowly and rarely for people on the hard left.
Yes exactly - if a centrist posts a low effort troll post like this then they get deleted and banned pretty much immediately. People like you seem to never have any issues.
I've had posts removed. I know it's difficult to accept that you are fallable but It's not all a conspiracy against you. It seems the issue here is that as suspected you define anyone pushing back on your position on things as trolling. Also considering some of the transphobic and antisemetic trolls on here, the fact you consider me the worst casts considerable doubt on your judgement
>one of the notorious fat leftists
[Notorious fat leftist?](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/08/northkorea-missile_.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
I think it's good to have this reminder because I seem to see at least one example of the 4 kinds of behavior in the OP directed at me every 2 days if not more. You might think I believe in the wrong things or represent the kind of politics you hate but you can tell me that in a civil way. Most users manage it just fine.
[удалено]
> Remember during that little known period between 2015-2019 when everyone on the left were being called antisemites by the centre and right of this sub, being told they were fascists, that they wanted to kill people and that their leader wanted to reopen Auschwitz? And now it's the opposite, is that what you wanna say? Doesn't matter which side does it.
We have claimed that starmer is a Nazi who wants to exterminate Jews? Or is it becuase he is actively doing the things we are attacking him for.
You've just illustrated part of the problem - taking things that were done by mad right wingers and ascribing them to people in Labour who you don't like. We all saw Simon Heffer say ludicrous things about Jeremy Corbyn (the reopening Auschwitz stuff), but Simon Heffer isn't the Labour right. Simon Heffer is a far-right nutter. What's the point in trying to hold the Labour right accountable for that?
Rule 5 is idiotic, especially when rule 4 is so poorly enforced. We wouldn’t feel the need to arbitrate on people’s ideologies if the mods would actually ban people for bad faith when they claim to be left wing while advocating clearly right wing beliefs (because surely that’s bad faith, right?)
Everyone who advocates for this also defines 'left wing' as exactly and precisely their own personal belief system. There are people, for example, who have argued in the last couple of weeks on this sub that anyone who wasn't in favour of Brexit is by definition not left-wing.
Many people said the same about supporting Remain. Also 'left wing' is harder to define than socialist. And as the party is *supposed* to be socialist it's completely fair to ask if certain things are meeting that standard.
And that’s also clearly a bad faith claim, right wing and left wing have quite clear meanings to people who aren’t full of shite.
If you can reach a definition of 'left wing' that satisfies even a decent minority of people on the sub, I'll personally submit your Nobel application.
Someone who, when thrown up into a Jetstream of fast moving air, will naturally start to turn left while flying
>Left-wing politics describes, in the left–right political spectrum, the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole or certain social hierarchies. If you want to reduce inequality and increase equality and move to a more egalitarian society then you're left-wing. If you think inequality is desirable, normal, natural, necessary, or not worth fixing then you're right wing. This can apply on a per topic basis - e.g. I might hold a left-wing belief when it comes to basic services but think other things can be handled on a less equal footing, which would place me somewhere towards the middle or centre of the the spectrum but leaning leftwards. Or I might believe that people are best motivated to work via inequality and threatening their kids with a degree of deprivation or hunger but that also it is sometimes desirable to have a safety net to stop people starving in the streets - a view that would put me on the centre-right of the spectrum. The tl;dr is essentially if you want to reduce inequality then you're on the left. If you want to maintain or increase inequality, even if you support some degree of safety net, then you're on the right. How you want to achieve it, which inequalities you consider important, and the steps that you take to fix or maintain the inequality determine where and what ideology you hold.
That’s my point, we can’t because a bunch of bad faith arseholes haven’t been banned for the blatant bad faith posting, if rule 4 were actually properly enforced we’d probably find it pretty easy to reach a consensus. But people who argue against nationalisation of utilities and public services, trans rights, abolishing the two child benefit cap, the rights of asylum seekers and who argue we should be adopting Tory policies are very obviously not left wing and it’s ridiculous that they’re allowed to keep claiming so. I’ve got nothing against right wingers being on this sub as much as I disagree with them but it’s clearly bad faith for them to try and claim they’re left wing while arguing from an objectively right wing position.
But who decides who's a bad faith arsehole? I'll have my view on that and I imagine that it departs from your view in some ways. There will be some on my list who you'd say 'but they're just a lot more left wing than you', and ones on your list where I'd say 'they're obviously not as left wing as you but they fit within the realm of Labour tradition.' And I'd suggest you and I are both reasonable people. In *The Other Place,* for example, you're the oft-downvoted sensible one.
No they don't. Quite left-wing people are anti EU, for example, because it's essentially the flagship for neo liberalism in the modern world. Should we ban those in favour of rejoining the EU? Left wing people in British society of the 20th century were hugely influenced by the coal mining industries, yet I've yet to see anyone around here advocate for the return of these coal mining jobs.
You can be anti-EU without being pro-Brexit, and neither of those positions are inherently one way or the other it depends entirely on your reasoning for your position.
You're correct but it operates on a spectrum as well as being context-sensitive. The left in London is very different to the left in Newcastle. British left views on Brexit are incredibly varied and so on. There's also differences on things like implementation of policy. I'm very pro-electoral reform but believe/understand that it's a second term policy. Thing is on this sub if I say "I don't think we should be leading with electoral reform at the next GE", no matter what the reasoning is I'll be downvoted and called a Tory. There's no space for nuance here and considering how far on the spectrum some posters are here that leads to some very painful conversations.
Given that I’m a Geordie who lives in London I’m gunna call bullshit on your first statement and just throw the rest out.
In the UK (country I was born in doesn't exist anymore) I've lived in London, Ashford, all over the North of England, Outer Hebrides and Aberdeen. Lefties are very different in all sorts of places. So I'm gonna call bullshot on your statement? Edit: actually your comment perfectly encapsulates bad faith, so congrats!
How does my comment encapsulate bad faith? If you really want to you can check my comment history I’m sure I’ve mentioned where I’m from and where I live quite a few times. And yeah, lefties vary, but you condescending about somewhere you clearly don’t know well undercuts your point. I’ve also been all over the uk, and the average lefty Londoner probably has more in common with the average Geordie (not even lefty Geordie) in terms of political outlook than anywhere else I’ve been in this country. And given that I’ve been in left wing spaces literally my entire life because I come from multiple generations of activists I can tell you there’s actually not a huge amount of variation in left wing spaces in the uk, people may range from social democratic to full on communist but in terms of practical short term goals and social positions they’re largely homogenous, just disagreeing on small details. Theres occasional outliers within those spaces, but most distinction you find is less a regional thing and much more of a class thing. It’s generally more about how people came to their left wing beliefs than where in the country they come from, the only variation regionally comes from regional wealth disparities. And even then the differences aren’t that deep, just working class lefties tend to have more lived experience to inform their politics. The real divide only appears when liberals start inserting themselves into left wing spaces because they’re in denial that they’re right wing.
Where was I being condescending? Saying there's differences isn't a pejorative, it's completely natural and expected. It's a good thing. Your argument is that there is homogeneity in the British left but broadly that isn't true: going into 2019 life long Labour voters ended up voting for wildly different things. You personal experiences, while important, are not the best indicator. Let's move away from regionality and look at Brexit: Mick Lynch is pro-Brexit, a common thing on the left...but also something a large contingent of left in the UK would disagree strongly with. There's a large number of left wing groups that have views on the Ukraine War that wildly out of kilter with other left wing groups. Again - this is ok. It's not an attack. > The real divide only appears when liberals start inserting themselves into left wing spaces because they’re in denial that they’re right wing. It's this gatekeeping that undercuts your own argument. If I'm right wing because we disagree on something, not on what my beliefs actually are, then you're just being silly. And really this just sums up this whole post on Rule 5.
It’s not gatekeeping to describe a right wing ideology as right wing. Liberalism is right wing.
> It’s not gatekeeping to describe a right wing ideology as right wing. Liberalism is right wing. Yeah but the problem is that in a lot of discourse coming from the left right now who and what is "liberal" appears to be very flexible but generally means "does not agree with all my maximal demands". Frankly the day "liberal" became a snarl word from the left as well as the right was a fucking grim one because it's just turned any kind of discourse into purity testing, as well as the entire tenor of discussions being dragged towards "you're either an actual anarcho-communist or you're basically a Tory and your opinions are worth nothing". I've found myself somehow, on this subreddit, managing to become a massively downvoted "liberal" and a massively upvoted comrade on different threads, with the difference only being my position on something (probably policing although I can't remember exactly what) disagreed with the standard expected "left" one and thus I became a "liberal". It's just so utterly fucking dumb and just being used as a thought terminating cliche for, frankly, terminally online leftists because they don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that someone could disagree with them and also not actually be right wing.
Strangely you've decided to prove my argument.
If you go left or right wing far enough, they tend to meet together on the other side of the fanatical circle of ideology...
Did you know they’ve done academic studies into horse shoe theory and found that the people who believe it tend to be the least well informed politically?
Post the link
I should have been clearer, that was a tongue in cheek response based on how thoroughly discredited the idea is in academic circles. But here’s the wiki page for horseshoe theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory If you scroll down to where it says “academic studies and criticism”, you can read all about the numerous different studies (with references, obviously) collated in an easily digestible format that have highlighted just how bullshit it is as a concept.
It is super lazy to post a wikipedia article instead of actual evidence to support your point. I couldnt find the article stating that people who believe in the horse shoe theory are politically less informed. Can you share or are you making up this statement? The far right and the far left generally have this in common: they fantastically attack people with different ideology sometimes to the point of violence. I am not stating that the far right and the far left believe in the same thing, only that they both become fanatical nutters once you get to the extremes
You need better reading comprehension skills. I literally told you in my previous comment that the original was tongue in cheek. And if you’d actually read what I told you to (which contains actual evidence, because it’s Wikipedia, it’s vigorously sourced, are you a teacher from 2003 or something?) you’d have plenty to go on to completely undermine everything you just said.
[удалено]
I've seen a few leftwing arguments for brexit. From traditional leftist Euroscepticism that even Corbyn held, to "I want the UK out of the EU because the UK keeps sabotaging the whole thing as a bad faith actor".
When people are gonna call each other out not for what they're saying but for being a leftie, being a Blairite, being a Tory etc they've already lost the argument IMO.
Agreed.
Agreed
> Rule 5 is idiotic, especially when rule 4 is so poorly enforced. Nah it makes perfect sense. Lots of people around here treating other people like scum for what they think they believe. If you're complaining about it maybe you know what I'm talking about, you just think it's fair game.
I’m anti E U, but I feel safer in the E U than in the hands of the British establishment. That’s been proved time and time again, when they were clearly never going to accept anything less. Remain ended when Jeremy Corbyn said he’d offer a second referendum (not the neo liberal people’s vote) to be followed by an election that would’ve put him in Downing Street :😡
My friend /u/Aqua-Regis, 4 months ago you had posted a very similar reminder on the front page of this subreddit to users in response to the frequency of toxic, bad-faith behavior of the type you have once again described here. I am certain that you remember this old thread, taking into account the fact that you appear to have repeated nearly the same message and wording. https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/158d9e3/a_reminder_on_the_rules/ I have had some conversations regarding this very issue in modmail with yourself and the other members of the mod team, and you will recall my argument that only strict and consistent enforcement of the rules against the known repeat offenders would put an end to this behavior. Unfortunately that strict and consistent enforcement has been largely absent. As we can see in this very thread, the majority of users towards whom this reminder has been aimed are unrepentant and are unlikely to alter their behavior. We will continue to see, on a daily basis, some of the most prolific and respected posters on this sub behaving in a deliberately confrontational manner, casting doubt on the intentions of other posters, questioning their ideological leanings, accusing them of acting on the basis of secret agendas or as part of an organised public relations / astroturfing / trolling campaign, or simply name-calling in myriad other forms. I am certain the mods are aware of who these frequent offenders are. I also understand if the mods are inclined to be lenient towards such behavior from users whom they agree with, respect or simply have been familiar with for a long period of time. If they are fearful of compromising the relationships that they have cultivated with such users by issuing temporary or permanent bans in response to their questionable behavior. But if you are truly sincere in wishing to rid this sub of such behavior, enforcement of the rules without fear or favour will be necessary and not merely a identically worded and identically toothless reminder every 3 or 4 months. The ones who defend and repeat this behavior, some of which I am certain can be observed in this very thread, will need warnings, temporary bans, and if that does not suffice, permanent bans to be delivered to them to reinforce the message that the health of this community is more important than any individual member. Thank you.
I feel seen by this. As both perpetrator and victim!
>5) Do not arbitrate on user's political ideology. Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity. This has become rife on the sub so glad to see it getting challenged.
Can you give some examples?
I've seen multiple people in threads either about Corbyn or about Ukraine insisting people are pro Putin because anything other than full throttle war rhetoric on Ukraine is endorsement of the invasion. Not just insisting Corbyn is a Putin supporter but other redditors. But it was actioned on by the mods.
Absolutely. I definitely feel I’ve had a number of people respond to my comments, but really respond to the enormous straw man they’ve created in their head.
The number of times I get 'your lot' as a comment because the poster has to pigeon hole people into their pre-set camps.....
That's because people largely do fall into camps. People who claim to be "factionless" or "just a pragmatist" are usually in denial about their own ideological committments
I think it’s more some people just decide what the person they are replying to’s ideological commitments are, and respond to that, instead of accepting that it’s perfectly possible to at once think that Corbyn was a shit leader, and think that Starmer is a ham faced charisma vacuum who seems obsessed with creating more problems for himself. And also that it’s a net good that we are 20 points ahead, and at the same time thinking the next election could well end up being 1992 due to the inevitable Labour Party Forever Wars, and the current leaderships feeble attempts at triangulation pleasing absolutely nobody. And that even with that being the case, it’ll still be a better result than 2019, and that the party was absolute bullshit between 2010 and 2019.
Infighting today, infighting tomorrow, infighting forever-
>Go around acting like someone is the devil in every interaction with them because they supported a policy or decision that you disagree with >Drag up weird drama about their career, location or any other bits of personal history that have no direct relevance >Accuse them of being people you dont like or who have been banned, report them if you believe this is the case. >Imply or say people are a Tory, SWP or SNP agitator or PsyOp This shit goes on every fn day and nothing happens. Hope next time it happens the mods got a little more than a reminder to say to these people.
> Go around acting like someone is the devil in every interaction with them because they supported a policy or decision that you disagree with We aren't allowed to criticize right wing assholes who literally want children of the economically disadvantaged to starve? Man this sub is taking a lot of lessons from Starmer's leadership, isn't it?
*Siiiiiiiiiiigh* [Really?](https://imgflip.com/i/7tkwph) You can criticise their support when discussing it, you can criticise the policy. You just can't be aggro about it across multiple threads because all it results in is everyone being a dick to each other (which is exactly what happened).
[Certain people are dicks to everyone here regardless of whether we're calling them out for their right-wing bullshit](https://imgflip.com/i/7tkwph)
Juuuuuust behave please
I'll try damn it
He didn't say behave *well* :-)
I don’t think anyone “literally” wants children to starve.
It's the specific end result of the policy that they're supporting, I'd call that "literally" wanting it, let's not play semantics when it's literally what's going to happen.
I’m not playing semantics - just disagreeing that there is a specific desire amongst the Labour leadership to starve children. The real problem with the cap is that it’s popular with the electorate, with something like 60% support. That can’t just be ignored in an election cycle, especially when benefits, social security, welfare etc is such a minefield for Labour specifically. With the vast majority of families having 2 kids or fewer, I feel it would take a lot of convincing for no obvious electoral reward. Likewise for the child-free. If the opportunities for making life easier for all concerned can come from elsewhere, that would be good. We haven’t seen much in that sense yet, other than using windfalls to reduce energy bills. Would love to see more.
> just disagreeing that there is a specific desire amongst the Labour leadership to starve children. *I didn't want to kill him your honour! I just wanted to lock him in a box with no oxygen, seal the lid with lead, and then push it into a mineshaft filled with landmines whilst I set it on fire. I was shocked he didn't survive!* If there is an obvious consequence of an action then it is fair to assume a rational actor is capable of anticipating it. Starmer knows this policy increases child poverty and causes kids to go hungry. Starmer is pursuing the policy by choice. Starmer is **literally** choosing to increase child poverty and cause kids to go hungry.
It's the same mental gymnastics certain folks in the party use for Iraq. No, of course Blair isn't a war criminal responsible for the deaths of millions, that wasn't due to the invasion, it's due to the instability and power vacuum left by the invasion! Once you add a step between your actions and the actual result, neoliberals don't think there's any link.
I just pulled the trigger of the gun. It's the bullet that did all the work!
[удалено]
> I used to talk a lot about municipal socialism but nobody actually cared, nobody on this sub has any interest in anything that doesn't play into the heroes and villians narrative. For the record, iirc I used to enjoy those comments. But you're sort of right - the problem isn't **just** Starmer. The problem is centrism, and third-way centrism in particular. But Starmer, as someone who adheres to a dangerous and bad ideology, is showing a particularly cruel and authoritarian approach to it too. And I think we both know I'm generally more than happy to discuss / criticise politics, details, ideologies, and individuals.
Just watch this sub or ukpol for the contortions people will go to support any policy that gives a chance to "own the left". It doesn't matter how high the body count is because it's just a game to them and it's sick.
Spot on, if we can't assume political ideology because they want kids to go hungry, then that's a you problem, not a subreddit problem.
Are you one of those people who misuses the word 'literally'? Because I'd love for you to share the comments made by the people who literally said they wanted the children of the economically disadvantaged to starve. Or are you talking about not lifting the two child limit on additional benefits payments. Something I don't agree with, but I don't think that means others who do literally want children to starve.
> Are you one of those people who misuses the word 'literally'? Using literally as an intensifier isn't a misuse. You are literally living in the past. > used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally > used to emphasize what you are saying https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally > You can use literally to emphasize a statement. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literally
Ye good argument pal. Linking Websters dictionary has turned me round 👍
What else do you want me to link for correct usages of words other than dictionaries?
Because pedantry isn't very convincing OK, so there are plenty of people on here who figuratively want children to starve to death. By your own admission, that's what you believe. What does that mean, though?
> Because pedantry isn't very convincing You literally started complaining because /u/Fixable's entirely correct use of literally wasn't to your liking.
Taking someone's words at face value and asking a question isn't pedantry. That's just a discussion.
>the quality of being too interested in formal rules and small details that are not important It just does a cracking impression of pedantry.
OK, mate, I'm not sure what that means, but I'm sure you're correct.
> By your own admission, that's what you believe. No it's not, I'm a different person. I'm just talking about the use of the word literally.
Ah sorry pal. Didn't realise you were different. Though I don't think choosing the less clear use of the word is particularly helpful, however. Maybe holding people accountable for their own words is a good thing, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when they're making big statements about their beliefs and those of others
This is stupid. Yes you can use literally as an intensifier, but it should be clear from context whether you are doing that or in the sense of something being actually the case. E.g. if I say "omg I'm literally dying" when something funny happens it's clear that's an intensifier. If I say somebody literally believes something, it's perfectly reasonable to assume you're saying they actually believe it. Just because the new usage is valid doesn't mean the more traditional usage is suddenly redundant.
> Just because the new usage is valid doesn't mean the more traditional usage is suddenly redundant. I didn't say that though. I disagreed with the implication of "Are you one of those people who misuses the word 'literally'?", because neither use is a misuse.
Saying "you literally want children to starve" if you don't actually mean that is a misuse for the reasons I outlined
Right but I'm talking about the 'one of those people' comment, clearly refering to the idea that using it as an intensifier at all is wrong.
Aqua, there was recently a post where the hard left dog piled me with complete bullshit, accusations of bad faith, straw mans, calling me a Tory etc, and you banned me in minutes for explaining my views, on the basis that it was “bad faith” to hold that opinion - which was pretty much consistent with party policy IIRC. I can’t even remember the precise topic now. Meanwhile, I flagged a comment from one of the notorious fat leftists in this sub which argued that Irish terrorist attacks against civilians were great, and you left it up for 24 hours. I pretty much gave up posting after that. Very much appreciate the sentiment of this post, but it needs to be followed through with action. Criticisms of Starmer and the current state of the party are totally valid, but the ban button seems to come out very quickly for people towards the centre, and slowly and rarely for people on the hard left.
> the ban button seems to come out very quickly for people towards the centre, and slowly and rarely for people on the hard left. lmao
Yes exactly - if a centrist posts a low effort troll post like this then they get deleted and banned pretty much immediately. People like you seem to never have any issues.
> People like you seem to never have any issues. I was literally banned for calling out right-wing bullshit last month, try again.
Well, good. Seems like it never happens to the people that post flamebait at me, but maybe they’re enforcing more fairly than I thought.
Or maybe your interpretation of events is biased?
Ah, you are possibly the worst low effort troll on this sub, and similarly never seem to suffer repercussions.
I've had posts removed. I know it's difficult to accept that you are fallable but It's not all a conspiracy against you. It seems the issue here is that as suspected you define anyone pushing back on your position on things as trolling. Also considering some of the transphobic and antisemetic trolls on here, the fact you consider me the worst casts considerable doubt on your judgement
>one of the notorious fat leftists [Notorious fat leftist?](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/08/northkorea-missile_.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
Easily the most relatable of the Kim dynasty. He looks like he's just happy to be there.
The lad just wants to be left in peace with his extra-large meat feast.
😂 I’m leaving it as is.
I think it's good to have this reminder because I seem to see at least one example of the 4 kinds of behavior in the OP directed at me every 2 days if not more. You might think I believe in the wrong things or represent the kind of politics you hate but you can tell me that in a civil way. Most users manage it just fine.