Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why MN is so left wing/liberal?

654 replies

cdvegan2023 · 06/12/2017 16:41

MN hates Brexit, the tories, pink toys, violent video games... you get the idea. But in real life most women don't mind buying gender specific toys/clothes and the election/brexit female vote was about 50/50. So what makes this place 90% lefty/lib when general society is either split or completely reversed? Confused

OP posts:
makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 12:29

The whole condemning violence on both sides smacks of sophistry.

I am not sure about this statement.

WindyWindy · 10/12/2017 12:38

No I don't expect you to agree with my interpretation and that's fine.

You accept him at face value and I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree and therefore in this case there can be nothing to be gained "debating" as it's a judgement based on my living through an era and being part of leftist "chat" at the time.

Crackednips · 10/12/2017 13:15

No one has sought to defend Naz Shah vile remarks on this thread you're right...I was wrong to suggest they had.

My frustration is more at Corbyn, who was like lightening to sack Jane Campion for having the nerve to identify the demographic most prevalent in the street, sex grooming gangs across the country. Yet has done nothing in response to Shah's appalling remarks.

No perking, I do not think Farrakhan should come to the UK, absolutely not. The man has openly and repeatedly called for violence against Jews, catholics, homosexuals and anyone else who doesn't share his own brand of lunacy. We certainly wouldn't allow his KKK equivalent in.

I'm all for free speech but that doesn't extend to the likes of him to come here and spread their poison.

www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/nation-of-islam-farrakhan-in-his-own-words

makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 13:28

as it's a judgement based on my living through an era and being part of leftist "chat" at the time

Understandable. I have lived through a few eras too.

It just seems to me that not condemning violence on both sides suggests violence by one or the other, or both, is acceptable.

Creature2017 · 10/12/2017 13:35

It gets hard to express a contrary view but there are a lot of us Tories on here (Tories can be liberal by the way, I have all kinds of liberal free views which the left hate).

PerkingFaintly · 10/12/2017 13:43

Thanks for answering that, CrackedNips.

So is your position that he doesn't have the right of free speech? Or something else?

(BTW, I'm personally glad he wasn't permitted to come.)

makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 14:11

Regarding Farrakhan, please remember that the US has a slightly different view of free speech. It is specifically protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was drafted to directly counter federal power.

In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 broadly enfolds the Freedom of Expression of the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows for substantial State limitations.

Farrakhan, therefore, is used to being freer in saying whatever he likes.

It is my understanding that Executive powers of the UK Government provide that anyone, for almost any reason, can be denied entry (though it gets trickier if they actually are on British soil - and are able then to claim HRA rights).

Legally, then, the Government acted within its constitutional powers in denying Farrakhan entry.

PerkingFaintly · 10/12/2017 14:26

Oh yes, perfectly legal to refuse people admission. We'd be entitled to refuse entry to Trump if the UK govt so deemed (and the courts agreed).

I'm interested in the ethical position free-speech advocates take. Whether everyone ends up saying, "Of course there's a limit" in the end, and how they draw those lines.

As I say, it's something I struggle with, so I'm interested to see others' views.

BertrandRussell · 10/12/2017 14:35

"Also can you explain to me why my asserting that Jeremy Corbyn supported the Prov -IRA during 'the troubles', is misinformation?"
Because he didn't.

Wormysquirmy · 10/12/2017 14:38

I completely agree OP.

The Corbyn/jane Campion issue was utterly typical of the views on MN

I actually think it's because a lot of MNetters are very middle class and naive as to what goes on. I don't think education really helps. There is a lot of dumbing down and lack of critical thinking.

makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 14:45

I'm interested in the ethical position free-speech advocates take. Whether everyone ends up saying, "Of course there's a limit" in the end, and how they draw those lines.

As a general rule regarding personal freedom, I like the "swinging arms" scenario - one is free to stand and swing ones arms about as much as one likes. Just plain willy-nilly.

But not when you start hitting someone. Or if it begins to make someone feel threatened.

makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 14:48

The Corbyn/jane Campion issue was utterly typical of the views on MN

Just for clarity's sake, it's Sarah Champion.

Jane Campion is a film director.

makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 14:51

And regarding the "swinging arms" scenario - I wish people would apply this to music at home.

Put on headphones and blow your eardrums to shreds....but don't torture the neighbours.

BertrandRussell · 10/12/2017 14:54

Are you quite sure you mean Jane Campion? Grin

Crackednips · 10/12/2017 15:08

Because he didn't Impressive! And this is from someone who requires links and evidence from me?

Perhaps you will respond substantively?

makeourfuture · 10/12/2017 15:11

Perhaps you will respond substantively?

Does one have to prove a negative?

shhhfastasleep · 10/12/2017 15:15

"'Also can you explain to me why my asserting that Jeremy Corbyn supported the Prov -IRA during 'the troubles', is misinformation?'
Because he didn't."

Sorry, but ... Oh yes he did. Don't remember him cosying up to the other side, particularly after they had committed an atrocity.
JC invited Adams to Westminster Just after the Brighton Bomb. JC was (is) a no mark poseur reputedly of the left. That's why invited Adams. I'm no fan of the Tories and despised Thatcher with all my heart. Even I thought you don't blow her up.

lynmilne65 · 10/12/2017 15:38

Personally I am a poor posh twat

BertrandRussell · 10/12/2017 15:46

Many people believe in a united ireland. It is a perfectly legitimate political stance.

Talking to people does not mean you support their actions.

BertrandRussell · 10/12/2017 15:48

There was violence on both sides. Corbyn condemned violence on both sides.

BertrandRussell · 10/12/2017 15:50

The right cosy up to hideous regimes and sell them weapons in the name of business and pragmatism.

GinsAndTonic · 10/12/2017 16:07

BertrandRussell

There was violence on both sides. Corbyn condemned violence on both sides.

Didn't Trump recently condemn "violence on both sides", whereupon the left went mental.

Double standards, much?

shhhfastasleep · 10/12/2017 16:15

Talking to people who try to blow up a democratically elected government is not OK. Particularly if , like JC, you had no role AT ALL in the peace process. He's tried some major back peddling and attempted to jump on Mo Mowlem's coat tails. Easy to fake now she's dead.
He's a git.

BertrandRussell · 10/12/2017 16:16

"Didn't Trump recently condemn "violence on both sides", whereupon the left went mental"

Because in the case in question, there was only violence on one side.

Are you saying that there was no Unionist violence in NI?

shhhfastasleep · 10/12/2017 16:26

And JC never bothered engaging with them or they didn't want to bother with him. Because he is a poseur.

Swipe left for the next trending thread