Left wing dialogue

[TrueBlueYorkshire]

As someone who has worked all over the world and is interested in politics I just wanted to see if I am only one who finds the language of the left tiring.

To give you an allusion of the type of language i mean below are two prime examples:

1. Taking the most extreme view and expressing it as if it is common.
   
2. Denying that people should show personal responsibility (this quite often goes hand in hand with point number 1).
   

I just find the language instantly de-rails any sort of constructive conversation regarding policy into a haves vs have-nots type argument which puts most people on the defensive. While people on the right are having sensible arguments with each other regarding society; in general people I talk to on the left seem to be in their own little world.

AIBU to think this sort of language is all to common from the left and it is what is isolating them?

[Hillingdon]

Honestly there are some on this thread who think because others dont believe what they do that they are stupid,dumb or just not thinking.

We have a different view from you - that is all!

[DoraGora]

Very circular, hillingdon. I rather suspect that that was the subject upon which this thread was founded.

[Offred]

What an interesting thing to read into my post. I meant successful at achieving your child free lifestyle...

I'm not assuming anyone isn't thinking. Sometimes it is just abundantly clear that they aren't because there are facts and then there are daily mail opinions...

[Hillingdon]

Offed - There you go again!

[DoJo]

I said I would love to have a child, more than anything. But we can't afford one so we are doing the responsible thing. I don't count it as successful at all.

I think Offred was saying that you have been lucky to have the choice to remain childfree, even if it is one that you feel has been forced upon you by economic circumstances. Unless you completely abstain from intercourse, choosing not to have a child relies on a number of things and luck is one of them. Not everyone is that lucky, and plenty of people have children at less than ideal times due to contraceptive failure, or have multiple births when they had decided that they could only afford to have one child etc. It's all very well to tell someone to 'cut their cloth' but everybody is actually holding the scissors themselves as it were.

[Flashbangandgone]

This whole 'child being a lifestyle' choice... Of course it is, at least in 99.9% of cases....

The 'left' use an extreme example of a woman who has been raped being left pregnant as proof that it isn't... This is ridiculous! Using the 0.01% of cases to support a generalisation.... Clearly such a case is extremely tragic and such a mother deserves sympathy and support, but it's also extremely rare!

Next someone will be saying that travelling abroad on holiday isn't a lifestyle choice because some women are made to go on holiday to the Middle East for a forced marriage!

[lemonade30]

why shouldn't the economically disadvantaged be at liberty to procreate at the expense of the taxpayer?

what else do they have to bring them joy and a sense of purpose?

not holidays, not cars, not mortgages, not savings, not careers, not opportunities, nor any of the possessions which the remainder of us with a distinct societal advantage apparently prioritise above the bearing of two plus offspring.

'children are poor men's treasure' an old adage which holds true.

The tories seek to limit the one thing that the socially disadvantaged can create and take pleasure in nurturing.

For shame Gideon.

[Capricorn76]

Children aren't really a lifestyle choice where you make a fully rational balanced and informed decision. They're the result of a biological urge/need to procreate like every other species although I guess the number of kids you have could be considered a lifestyle choice excluding multiples, contraception failure and secondary infertility.

@NC you're not very proactive for a staunch right winger are you? Why don't you and you partner pull yourselves up by the boot straps, get on a bike and retrain in order to get a better paying job? That way you'll be able to buy your own home (a key right wing aspiration) and have that child. Come on! join us 'hard working families!'

[Flashbangandgone]

why shouldn't the economically disadvantaged be at liberty to procreate at the expense of the taxpayer? what else do they have to bring them joy and a sense of purpose?.... etc.

Ironically, this is a particularly depressingly "anti-poor" post.

Who are you to write-off a section of society and say they have no prospects? Who are you to assume that they have no means of educating themselves, working hard and improving their lot? Who are you to say that the only way they can get any joy is to have children? What does that say to those in that group who can't have children, or aren't in a relationship that will given them that child?

Views like this only go to reinforce the pernicious view of the abilities and capacity 'under-class' in this country.... If those that purport to be their champions have this view, what hope do they have! No one should be written off in the way you have written them off in this post. People deserve more respect.

[lemonade30]

how exactly am I writing them off?
is that how little you value the role of a parent of multiple children?
they are somehow achieving less than you or I simply because their endeavours do not presently contribute to the economy?

I'm a realist. people gravitate towards parenthood in the absence of other opportunities and advantages. There is no shame in this. We make the best of our lot.

Most economically and socially disadvantaged people will not have the necessary education, sense of entitlement, aspiration and social conditioning to reach anything even appropriating the lifestyle many of us aspire to.

ironically its the right wing contingent who have historically ensured their position.
I am merely a pragmatic and empathetic commentator.

[lemonade30]

people deserve more respect

yes, parents on benefits who are effective and loving most certainly do. Unfortunately limiting the state provision to care for their children denotes the exact opposite.

namely contempt.

[Flashbangandgone]

The main issue I have with the shouty, sweary left on MN is that I'm not sure what kind of society they really want.

They jump up and down at cuts, and I understand that, I'm uneasy about some of the cuts (and personally would prefer the benefits bill to be skewed away from supported the wealthier section of pensioners onto families), but they seem to ideologically oppose every cut on principle - no nuanced view, no recognition of waste.

They strongly support those that have work issues concerning pay, conditions etc., and I get that too, there are issues that people understandably feel strongly about, but the ideologically support every grievance, and in every worker vs. management battle, the worker is always in the right, on principle.

It's tribally class-focussed, and can only create trouble.... but then that's maybe what they want.... trouble, revolution, a new Trotskyite world order

[TheChandler]

I suspect they want a society like Greece flash.

Theres already been a thread on how "hawt" the Greek pm is.

[Flashbangandgone]

yes, parents on benefits who are effective and loving most certainly do. Unfortunately limiting the state provision to care for their children denotes the exact opposite

I agree with you first point. But I don't think we get around the fact the having children is a lifestyle choice, and I personally don't think people have the right to expect their lifestyle choices to be supported by the state. I do however believe the state has a duty though to ensure that children are protected and given every opportunity to succeed and thrive, and yes, that does mean the provision of some benefits.... It does not mean creating a socialist state of welfare dependency that you appear to be supporting, where generation after generation require others to pay tax to support their lifestyle.

[MaggieJoyBlunt]

I do however believe the state has a duty though to ensure that children are protected and given every opportunity to succeed and thrive

But that's it, isn't it?

You've lost me with the rest of it TBH Flash.

[Flashbangandgone]

how exactly am I writing them off?
is that how little you value the role of a parent of multiple children?

You are writing them off by assuming they have no hope of doing anything other than procreate.

Having children is a blessing, and all parents have value, and should be supported by society. This is not the same as saying that it is right for a childless person to choose to have children they cannot afford, expecting others to pick up the bill.

[lemonade30]

of course it's a lifestyle choice. I would never argue otherwise.

its wholly disingenuous to presume that the segment of society which indeed makes the choice to have multiple children without the means to provide for them independent of state provided financial assistance have the choices at their disposal which the remainder of us do.

its a trade off.

We have our cars, houses, holidays, salaries, security and they have their children.

We forfeit our taxes/family size, they forfeit their security/luxuries.

its sustainable. nobody in my position wants to switch to a life on benefits. no matter how much many of them bemoan their huge taxes/mortgages etc.

I can't begrudge my taxes supporting disadvantaged children, in fact I'm bloody well proud that I contribute my higher rate of income tax to the parents and children of large families dependent on state benefits.

I can't think of any better use for them than levelling the playing field for the next generation.

[Flashbangandgone]

My point is that kids should have every opportunity to thrive, but a kid can't thrive in a benefit dependent underclass. It is this underclass that is being deliberately perpetrated by those who think this group can aspire only to procreate.

[lemonade30]

no hope of doing anything other than procreate

some people have no hope of doing anything other than making large salaries.

If I mentioned this would I be writing them off too? Or can't they be so easily written off? because are net contributors they are exempt from derision?

listen to yourself flash. I have the utmost respect for effective parents of large families. I'm a medic. my job is tough in anyone's estimation but parents of four plus children have my respect and awe.

do they have yours flash ?

[lemonade30]

well no I suppose they can't thrive in Gideons Britain. correct.

Gideon et al aren't a necessary component of contemporary society though.

How arrogant to presume a child can only be happy within your arbitrarily determined degree of aspiration flash

[Flashbangandgone]

For a family in poverty with children already, then yes, it is right out taxes help support those children... But it isn't right in my view to assume that those 'economically deprived' kids can only perpetuate their parents' choice and not strive to become a higher rate tax payer like you, which is the position you appear to be arguing in your earlier post that I took exception to for ironically being anti-poor!

[lemonade30]

strive lol.

They can and indeed may become a net contributor. It will be harder for them and they will get there in smaller numbers, capitalism and tory rhetoric will see to that I'm sure.

my point is its okay if they do, equally okay if they don't. In a fair society their happiness will not necessarily be positively correlated with their salary.

[Flashbangandgone]

*some people have no hope of doing anything other than making large salaries.

If I mentioned this would I be writing them off too? *

Yes you would in my opinion! Who are you to judge?