Triggernometry Day the Delusions Died

Being a pervert isn’t constrained to any political strip but being sympathetic to pedos and advocating for them does seem to be very much a left wing thing. That doesn’t mean that most of the left are pedo advocates, it just means that most pedo advocates are on the left politically. Do you disagree?

As far as PIE goes, I don't think being a pervert is confined to one political stripe, that's for sure.

I do think there is a reason the left was fooled into taking it up as a cause, however briefly. I think there is a reason there were even more extreme examples of that kind of ideology taking hold in places like Germany. And I think there are similar mechanisms at play now with sexual ideologies and the left. The left is very vulnerable to ideological capture.

Or to put it a different way, what we tend to see among conservatives and Tories are people protecting their friends, corruption, a blind eye, with perverts and abusers. What you don't see so much is an ideological infiltration saying this kind of behaviour is in fact good and should be institutionally protected and even promoted.

I'm not American as it happens.

And you are missing the point. I'm not talking about American politics, but responding to the way you are interpreting that research. That is, just because political parties, or political figures, have overlap in their voter base, does not mean that they are all that similar politically.

That could be the case, but that kind of overlap can happen for a lot of reasons. In some cases, like Sanders and Trump, they can be in many ways dissimilar, in fact many people would see them as being clearly opposed. There are really interesting questions about why both appeal to many of the same people, but it simply is not a case of same voters, same political philosophy.

You can post all the academic research you want but if you draw conclusions like that from it, maybe it's not the research people will dispute.

I think my feelings about this is 1) its mainly men in power and 2) a lot of men are sexually incontinent and have fetishes/kinks/illegal sexual activities. So all parties end up being infected with perverts.

Part of the reason it's so important to maintain safeguarding is that protects against these men being able to abuse positions of power. Safeguarding and an understanding of grooming/abuse of power is really something that's been developed over the past 20 or 30 years as repeated scandals emerged (like PIE, Savile, Ian Huntly, Catholic church).

Although I think PIE is important to understand as a way of looking at how sex offenders can operate in plain sight and lobby to facilitate their activities, I don't think its particularly a feature of left vs right.

I think we should point out this was 50 years ago now. And affected all parties.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/25/police-and-politicians-turned-blind-eye-to-westminster-child-abuse-claims-report

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/thatcher-peter-hayman-named-paedophile-archives

Yes. Before he was forced to resign for taking bribes, and sparked an inquiry into "cash for questions".
In leaked emails, he was accused by UKIP's biggest donor, Arron Banks, of being a "corrupt old Tory".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Hamilton_(politician)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-hamiltons-sleazy-does-it-485611.html

He seems exactly the sort of leader a serious political party needs 😂

PIE - the Paedophile Information Exchange. They embedded themselves in the Establishment, and they got support from various politicians and the National Council for Civil Liberties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

What’s this about the Labour Party in the past supporting PIE? What pie?

I would have to agree with this too actually, if it means what I think it means.

We don’t let neo-Nazis engage in public life, being in the BNP would likely exclude you from being in the police force or being a university lecturer or anyone else in a position of importance or influence. Communists should absolutely be treated like that too, because like neo-Nazis they are followers of an evil murderous ideology.

Oh THAT Neil Hamilton… That kinda proves my point then doesn’t it, UKIP leaders are the sort of people who would have fitted in with 1980”s Tories before the Tories became scummy shitlibs. Because THAT Neil Hamilton was a whip for Thatcher and a Minister in John Majors government.

Anyway I think you have just proven the other posters right, debating with shitlib smear merchants is a waste of time because they don’t act in good faith, just give them a taste of their own medicine and smear them back. I’m going to take your advice now.

This is a feminism board, not a politics board.

Farage hasn't led UKIP for years. Currently it's led by Neil Hamilton (yes THAT Neil Hamilton).

Thatcher would not have had Farage in her cabinet. He is awful. Dodgy links to Russia, question over his financing, populist, anti-EU. He's not credible and you are scraping the barrel to imply he is.

And there is no need to resort to insults. I think it's very clear who is posting in good faith and who isn't. I've posted links to academic research discussing why UKIP and the BNP are similar. You've posted nothing except "bad faith, leftist" waffle.

You cannot really be ignorant if you’re posing on a politics board. Are you trolling people? UKIP was lead by Nigel Farage, he’s like a 1980’s Thatcherite. Slightly socially conservative, very economically liberal and believes in the nation state as opposed to international institutions like the EU. He would define being British as a legal status. He is literally the sort of person Thatcher would have had in her cabinet.

The BNP are right wing in the sense that they absolutely reject equality and left wing economically. They are National Socialists. They wouldn’t accept Farage’s economic liberalism as they believe in all within the state, nothing against the state and nothing outside the state so ‘free’ enterprise under them would be ‘free’ like it is in China. Unlike the left who believe in equality and seek international socialism and solidarity based on social class the BNP believe that nationalism is the only true form of socialism as nationalism includes everyone in the nation which they would define as an ethnicity and that’s another really big difference between them and UKIP. Someone like Farage would just reject all forms of socialism and would see people as individuals only.

Can you really not see the difference? Or are you just another leftist bad faith actor and is it a waste of time telling you this? Should, as others have suggested, we just answer smear with smear?

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1662061391254020099

But for the medium term at least, trans-Atlantic culture warriors can save themselves time and money by remembering that on religion, race and tradition, Britain is not America.

So yep, a US poster.
I have no idea about Sanders and Trump as I'm UK based. But the UK and US political landscape are not comparable
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1662061344814768129

I'm not particularly interested in discussing elites and populism from a US conservative perspective tbh

I noticed you didn’t really dispute the fact that UKIP policies including their key policy of leaving the European Union would likely be supported by around half the population either, which mainstream party representatives those people?
All the mainstream parties are committed to brexit. Where have you been since 2016??

Actually I think pro-EU voters are the ones who have no political home now. But I guess that's "the will of the people" (from 7 years ago, when we didn't know what brexit meant and the voter base was demographically different)

We have representative democracy, so we vote for whom we wish to act on our behalf. They are then free to act as they wish. They aren't there to "represent half the population". They are the candidate the majority of voters think will be mos5 closely aligned to their wishes.

https://www.thoughtco.com/representative-democracy-definition-pros-cons-4589561

Are you advocating a move to direct democracy? Good luck, we can't even get PR

Yeah see, you’re giving the political system way too much credit, neither of the mainstream parties really represent half the population. Poll Labour MPs on say their attitude to mass immigration or crime and punishment. Then go to a rock solid Labour seat in a working class town and poll their voters… 😂

I noticed you didn’t really dispute the fact that UKIP policies including their key policy of leaving the European Union would likely be supported by around half the population either, which mainstream party representatives those people?

Ever read a book called ‘the populist delusion’?

Targeting the same voters doesn't really mean they are similar.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump targeted a lot of the same voters too.

Oh, and I posted a whole bunch of links upthread explaining how UKIP and the BNP are similar and target the same voters.

If it walks like a duck.....

Yes. I would assume someone with essentially a socialist political view would vote Labour, not conservative. That's kinda the point of democracy? You are voting for someone to act as your representative in Parliament, so you pick the candidate whose position is most similar to yours.

I'm very confused you would think that's somehow unusual.

No. I gave a specific example of why I disagree that UKIP are a moderate party and think they are right wing, and why I think Nigel Farage is putting forward race essentialism in a more palatable way. Which is where the conversation started.

I'm assuming you have nothing to say to that as your response has been to straw man my perspective into "So basically everyone who doesn't have some kind of open view of immigration is far right, because surely if they don't they are just dog-whistling their race essentialism?" And then argue with that.

Why? Do you think there is any correlation between a political party’s policies and the views of the people they represent? Since when?

Take Brexit for example, even most conservative MPs campaigned for remain but when it was put to the public in a referendum they voted leave. I think that just over 50% of the public would vote for the death penalty in a referendum too so by the standards of the actual people of this country who politicians are supposed to represent believing in the death penalty is a moderate widely held opinion not an extreme one.

I would be willing to bet that most UKIP policies would be acceptable to most people and gain about 50% support if put to the public in a referendum. They would be right in the centre of this countries population politically. It’s just that the political class don’t represent their voters that’s all, the political class are the problem not the people and the political class needs replaced. If self ID was put to parliament in a free vote without whips for example I think it would pass, if it were out to the people in a referendum I think it would fail and the difference between the public and the politicians is vast.

As for political parties being far right, the BNP are probably the best known example of a far right party in the U.K. but they are not remotely like UKIP. Their voters might be similarly but the leadership of those parties most certainly are not.

Anyone who seeks to turn this into a left (good people) vs far right thing, by putting the right in with the far right, is seeking to increase the polarisation which has been incredibly harmful over the past several years. Something that is a gift to populists like Trump.

You've just said that parties suggesting standard right wing policies are just putting forward things like race essentialism, in a more palatable way.

Given that we are talking about differentiating the right from the far right, I don't know how that could be interpreted other than as saying there is really no difference.

Ad yes, the educated left does tend to have a problem with cultural symbols, the flag being the most obvious example.

So basically everyone who doesn't have some kind of open view of immigration is far right, because surely if they don't they are just dog-whistling their race essentialism?

That's not at all what i said. If you aren't interested in a genuine debate then let's not bother.

As for British cultural symbols, maybe we could say double decker busses, telephone boxes, Jane Austen, Dr Who, the monarchy, tea, certain herealdic symbols? I am sure we could go on. And then we could also include Scottish or Welsh associations which for some reason no one find problematic for regular people to use and enjoy.

Do people have problems with the "British cultural symbols" you've listed? I've never seen issues (apart from perhaps "The Monarchy" which is more of an institution than a symbol)?