Can we talk about moral purity?

[howonearthdidwegethere]

I see this come up a lot on this board and want to offer up a couple of examples from my experience that bolster the case for working with a range of voices on a single issue. (I'd welcome counter examples, as I genuinely want to unpick this for my own sanity!)

Example #1: Named Person law
In Scotland, the SNP Govt passed a law (supported by all the opposition parties bar the Tories) that would have assigned every child in Scotland a state guardian. Please Google for more details if you're interested.

A groundswell of grassroots opposition rose up to challenge this law and it was largely fronted and resourced by a Christian group (forget the name of the organisation). They set up a campaign group (No2NP) and were joined by a children's law centre and a former senior social worker but the Christian group were the driving force.

I could see this law was an affront to civil liberties and yet Liberty were nowhere to be seen (waves at Shami). My most generous interpretation is that Liberty has no real presence in Scotland so weren't up on it all. Nonetheless, no human/civil rights groups spoke up.

Anyway, lots of my left-leaning, liberal mates tried to warn me off supporting the campaign, because of the Christian group and what other causes they had supported.

But the campaign group ploughed on, took a legal case and were vindicated in their concerns by the UK Supreme Court.

Example #2: EU referendum
I spent some time campaigning for Remain and most memorably spent a few hours in my hometown leafleting a few days before the vote. Standing on the same block were a former senior advisor to the Tory party, an SNP member and a lifelong Labour voter.

That individuals with very differing (often oppositional) politics could come together to fight for the same issue I found really moving. I remember too a photocall of Cameron, Ashdown and Kinnock doing a stint on a Remain phonebank, and felt similarly moved.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with any Tory or even (horrors) Brown or Blair. Of course, we can only speculate here but you have to wonder if we would be where we are now had he not taken such a puritanical view re engaging with the main Remain campaign.

If we indulge the culture wars narrative, aren't we ourselves just being complicit in the polarisation of politics, which is what's got us where we are today (Trump, Brexit etc.)?

I hang with a group who campaign on a particular issue with the Christian Right. I'm wary because it seems to have shut down debate about other issues - mainly reproductive rights - and sometimes I can see the line between 'this is bad because it shores up the patriarchy' and 'this is bad because Gawd says so' being not only blurred but crossed - and the right's favour. Personally, I choose to have nothing activist to do with the Christian or other right. They are not women's friends and their male-dominated churches have far more power than feminist women.

I confess that I used to have a bit of the 'moral purity' attitude when I was young, as I'm sure many people did. Hopefully I've grown out of it!

Perhaps part of the problem is that social media is very influential as well as having a largely (but not exclusively) younger audience.

Younger people are learning about the world and themselves within the echo chamber. They are looking for a tribe to join to help them understand who they are and their place in the world.
They often see things in black and white terms, so things are either good or bad -no in betweens and usually they don't have the confidence to challenge their tribe even if they do disagree with something.
Identity politics speaks loudly to the self obsession and insecurity of being young and makes them easy to manipulate.
It is only through time and experience that I've learned that there's good and bad in everyone -we are all fallible humans no matter who we vote for.

That said, there are some people that are total asshats!

Nobody is ideologically or morally pure. NOBODY. Holding one belief does not mean you automatically agree with a whole set of others. It's idiotic to pretend otherwise. We need to move away from this lunacy of not being able to talk to each other and debate ideas. Words are best met with other words. A conversation rather than constantly smearing the opponent or denying them the right to speak. It's finding out what people are SAYING and DOING that is important, not whether they label themselves as "conservative" or "liberal." And "progressives" do not get a fucking free pass to act however they want just because they think their team is always the "noble" one.
Quite frankly, it's the "Left" right now that scares the living daylights out of me, because they have a lot of institutional power and appear to be justifying some seriously dodgy behaviour, like the abuse of gender-critical women, by claiming it is for the greater good.

It's incredibly frustrating that none of the left wing press will touch gender critical stories, and when you ask some people to read the times or the mail they refuse on purity grounds

The idea of moral purity in this context is recent, we used to talk about alliances. We don't any longer because it it doesn't suit the establishment who are pushing for identity politics to replace class politics.

Ugh I missed out a key NOT in my post.
Should have read:

It’s NOT ‘moral purity’ not to want to fuck or date a Tory/Labour Party/Lib Dem/Green Party member whoever or whatever. Unless people have a pre-set list of Topics Never to Be Discussed (?)

I caught an interview with Harriet Harman on the dreaded WH a few days ago and it was actually quite heartening. She was talking among other things about how much easier it is now to work with Tory women on women's issues than it was a generation ago, because now 'they've all been raised by feminists' . She gave props to May for acknowledging her as Mother of the House and to Leadsom for her work on WR. (But nary a word about the GRA, needless to say.) What was heartening though was her willingness to work across the aisle and to acknowledge that co-operation while holding diametrically opposed views on many other matters. Some minute cause for hope anyway.
It's depressing how many people are utterly tribal about politics.

Many on here hate Stellla Creasy yet she is doing good work on abortion rights with cross party support from Andrea Leadsom and Tory grandee Sir Peter Bottomley.

Is 'hate' your perception of peoples exasperation and anger?

I have to hold up my hands regarding Stella Creasy. I don't hate her but I am massively disappointed. That said, at least she's picked a side and she may genuinely believe TWAW, who am I to say she doesn't. It's the MPs who won't even go near the topic who annoy me more. That includes Hariet Harman, who is never normally this coy on women's issues and who at 68, is unlikely to be worried about deselection.

You're right that it shouldn't override the other good work they've done but I'm afraid the silence leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

There are few things more fundamental to the human race than being male or female and being able to state factually exactly what that means.

If we cannot get that straight then arguing over things like tax policy seems pointless, especially for women.

Is 'hate' your perception of peoples exasperation and anger?

I swithered about loathe, despise, or hold her in contempt. My point stands- the only time she is mentioned is when something derogatory is being said about her.


I think we make a lot of assumptions when we know someone has a 'label', or if they hold a certain view on something. The first example that comes to mind is Peter Hitchens. I see him regularly lambasted as an arch brexiteer Tory, which he is neither, he's a really interesting independent thinker on the conservative end of the spectrum. I don't agree with every conclusion he comes to, but I hugely respect the courage it takes to not just adopt all positions under a certain label.

There are those on the left who I feel the same way about. I have so many people make assumptions about me based on what they think I believe - you see it ALL the time on here - "Oh, you're a 'RadFem', you're anti-trans, you hate men, blah blah blah." It's the opposite of intelligent communication.

I think the lack of nuance is really bothering me. If i say to some of my “woke” family members that I have a problem with the GRA it has to be because I have to be a bigot not because I have any genuine concerns. It must all be a front for my bigotry.

This has become increasingly apparent in political discussion generally. If you a Tory it’s because you are evil, if you support labour you are stupid. The conversation seems to just stop there. Once someone is able to label someone else as a terrible person in an ad homien attack it’s fine to ignore everything else they say. If you can stigmatise and isolate people who mildly disagree with you you don’t have to have a debate at all, you’ve won by default.

Its why I hate this whole trend of shouting “no debate” it turns into I won’t talk to or listen to certain people, its authoritarian. Everything should be up for debate.

If we indulge the culture wars narrative, aren't we ourselves just being complicit in the polarisation of politics, which is what's got us where we are today

In a nutshell yes.

This was recognised by the founders of America and why they believed in freedom of speech. The realisation comes from realisation of the waste of blood shed.

A belief that you are always right in your ideology comes from arrogance. Tyranny springs from arrogance.

You learn more from talking to others who you might not usually agree with. Having your views challenged helps you to refrain and improve what you belief and how good your arguments are.

Sometimes you will have an epiphany and completely change your mind about a subject too. This is healthy.

Thinking is healthy.

We have forgotten this.

Yes. The prevalence of the extreme accusation is ridiculous. If you disagree with something it's put down to 'hate' at the very least. After that it escalates to 'bigot' and all the way up to defcon one and the deployment of 'Nazi'.

chattylion this was the documentary I think. Well worth watching if you have the time. Hope this clicky link works!
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0916ghz]

Dammit -can't seem to make that work on my phone. It on the bbc website, Jamie Bartlett's 'secrets of silicon valley '

The idea that if a person has one 'wrong' viewpoint then the whole person must be shunned, is stupid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is good to be cautious in politics and to look carefully at your own actions and motivations. But you can't just write people off based on them not agreeing with you on everything. Like Julie Bindel----people hate her in entirety as the Devil due to her views on trans people. But she's helped more women in her life than most people every will.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0916ghz
There we are!

Thanks Bluetits looks great. I don’t think it’s on IPlayer any more but I will have a look on YouTube or somewhere. Love a good documentary.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0916ghq/episodes/guide

Thanks x-post

Damn, the programme is now unavailable. Might be on Netflix or something though -I only have free telly!

Cross post -sorry!

My best friend is a Tory county councillor, I've baby sat whilst she has been campaigning or going to meetings.

I would never vote Tory, however my friend puts an amazing amount of time and energy into her local community, regardless of her political affiliations, and I think this is often forgotten. I support her because of this and of course because she is my friend.

My DH jokingly calls it "aiding and abetting" a Tory!!