Keir Starmer to end Tory Culture Wars

[Sausagenbacon]

Oh what a relief. Where would we be without him?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-keir-starmer-says-he-will-end-tory-culture-wars-if-he-becomes-prime-minister_uk_6666d7d2e4b02fc48bf3ec39?d_id=7763591&ncid_tag=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=uk_main

It's fairly straightforward to observe from this thing which most people refer to as reality. Let's see:

• Racial essentialism is the basis of critical race theory. The majority of American race theory is based on the notion that races are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's race.
• Sexual essentialism is the basis of the trans movement.
• Censorship has been a significant issue around acceptable language, or acceptable viewpoints. Think about the consternation around the broadcasting of GB News (projecting right-wing viewpoints on the whole, but no more extreme than most news broadcasting or, indeed print media). Or think about all the people driven from universities or other institutions for not following the trans orthodoxy.
• You may have noticed rampant antisemitism from the left.
• Violence and threat of violence: again the trans issue provides some very clear examples of this, as does the "pro-Palestine" movement. This isn't that pronounced yet, but look at the rhetoric of many progressive movements around climate action, and you can see the direction of travel.
• The key duty of companies is defer to progressive viewpoints: this is the most fascinating of all these trends. It used to be that what one would demand of businesses is that they maintain working conditions, avoid exploitation, and generally act in an economically liberal manner. This has been replaced with the expectation that the key requirement of businesses is to act in a socially liberal manner. Thus, Nike can employ exploitative (and some would say slave) labour in the developing world, but it doesn't matter as long as it sends the right social message about diversity.

And this is just a small commentary on the weirdness of modern politics. One could easily write a whole book on this.

The Nazis weren't socialist ... but the interesting detail, which tends to get missed today, is an awful lot of the members of the Nazi party thought they were in a progressive and socialist party, despite all the evidence to the contrary (and the Nazi leadership ended up having to kill off quite a few of their gay and explicitly socialist members in the Night of Long Knives in 1934).

This ends up being one of the confusing aspects of radical politics for many people, in that the labels detach from the reality of the politics (much like the repressive and autocratic socialist countries, who call themselves "democratic" because a few party members get to vote for the politburo). So, you say you are socialist, or democratic, or whatever, but none of your actions live up to the reality of your self-identification.

On violence: when people accept that words are equivalent to physical violence then physical violence becomes an acceptable response to words, hence the antics of some TRAs.

Disturbingly, "silence is violence" was one slogan evident at BLM marches.

Yes! Let's go!

It's fairly straightforward to observe from this thing which most people refer to as reality. Let's see:

• Gender traditionalism is the basis of the gender critical movement. The majority of the GC movement is based on the notion that sexes are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's sex.
• Deification of mothers is the basis of the pronatalism movement. The bond between mothers and babies is sacred.
• censorship of the views of their opponents by banning books and liberal viewpoints from education. Think of the consternation around Pride festivals and putting up the pride flag at schools, or teachers discussing gender identity with children (projecting progressive viewpoints on the whole, but no more extreme than most media or public viewpoints).
• You may have noticed the rampant Islamophobia of the right.
• violence and the threat of violence are acceptable to protect a traditional cause. again the "cultural integration" issue provides some very clear examples of this, as does the "two tier policing" movement. This isn't that pronounced yet, but look at the rhetoric of many right wing movements around traditional culture, and you can see the direction of travel.
• the key duty of companies is to make money for shareholders. This is the most fascinating of all these trends. It used to be that what one would demand of businesses is that they maintain working conditions, avoid exploitation, and generally act in an economically liberal manner. This has been replaced with the expectation that the key requirement of businesses is to make money for shareholders. Thus, Nike can employ exploitative (and some would say slave) labour in the developing world, but it doesn't matter as long as it turns a healthy profit and strong dividends.

If certain factions of the left are going to meet any questions/dissent/variance from a set of socially acceptable views held by a tiny elite clique with a self righteous declaration that this means the people asking are now 'right wing' or 'far right', and concomitantly attempt to shame, silence, coerce or smear the people asking questions/dissenting, then they should not be surprised when eventually people start shrugging and say 'okay, then'.

It's not 'far right' to suggest that only women have a cervix, or that women bear the reproductive burden, or that children shouldn't be over sexualised, or that freedom of speech is important, or that the police should be impartial and apolitical.

Women's rights and children's safety are not 'far right', and the fact that these have been positioned as such not only by the right wing but also by the left wing is highly dangerous bullshit.

Gender traditionalism is the basis of the gender critical movement. The majority of the GC movement is based on the notion that sexes are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's sex.

No.

Just No.

Just. Have you actually been listening in ANY of the time you have been on MN?

Sorry, you've lost me already because you REALLY haven't understood this alone.

My eyes are rolling.

“The sexes are inherently (ie biologically) distinct” aaaaand stop.

It's just such an unhelpful approach.
"Here, let me tell you all about the other side and what I think they are like and why you should hate them...."

Culture wars are so boring.

The bar for what's considered by some to be 'far right' seems to be set at a similar level to a dachshund's dick.

That's how I feel about what that other poster wrote about "progressives"

You are actually precisely illustrating my point. Caricaturing "the other side" causes eye rolling, frustration and disengagement.

And no I don't think that. But if PP believes what they wrote about "race essentialism" they also haven't been listening. That's why I wrote the caricature.

Can't be that boring to you considering how many hours you spend here under various guises.

Quite!

It's genuinely impressive that you can be wrong so many times in one post.

The sexes are inherently distinct. This is a scientific fact and shouldn't be the basis of any political movement, because it should be accepted by everyone as uncontroversial.

You have got everything else wrong.

Tell me you don't know what gender critical means without telling me you don't know what gender critical means.

Thanks to the posters who've contributed thoughtful and measured posts on the topic of class and political terminology. They are like special industrial strength torches that highlight the bollocks in between.

Aren't gender traditional and gender critical sort of opposites?

Traditional = gender norms are good and pure and right

Critical = gender norms are potentially oppressive and should be optional

TRA = gender norms are useful to me but don't tell me to conform to the gender norms of my birth sex or you can FRO

Going on about stories written by a journalist for an American Audience in the context of the Election There about anti-semitism - on a story which British Audiences would percieve to be actually about the Major North / South Split in UK politics and the neglect of the North by Labour which has dominated for the last 8 years. Thus actually being the one to stir up Culture Wars.

The IRONY.

Thats the other thing thats very apparent for me. The utter lack of self awareness amongst Politicial Activitists. Too busy in their purity spiral to actually give a thought to how others percieve them and whether its the same as the intention. Because they are The Righteous.

(Note here before it gets raised - who is it who is campaigning for a particular party, and is doing arguably more harm than to their cause than good on MN).

The Righteous are the single most damaging individuals in International Politics. Most people are not that evangelical and can see how damaging a lack of listening is.

Tell me you don't know what gender critical means without telling me you don't know what gender critical means.

Snort.

I'm saying I think teenagers think forums are for old people and access their information in ways that are unfamiliar to us.

And I asked you which ways you mean, or is it just a thought terminating cliche because you don't like the idea? How is it relevant to the overall point that many teenagers aren't what people would think of as "progressive" anyway?

I'm not the person who asserted teens were getting views from 4chan and KF.

They're not "getting views". They go there because they already have the views.

It's very clear that you don't want to engage with the substantive point here.

Gender traditionalism is the basis of the gender critical movement. The majority of the GC movement is based on the notion that sexes are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's sex.

This is completely incorrect. Gender tranditionalism is in direct conflict of the gender critical movement, as gender critical means not believing or willing to support stereotyping of the interest and cultural expectation of the sexes. GC means letting boys play with barbies and girls with toy trucks. Gender traditionalism means not allowing boys to play with barbies and girls with trucks.

Transactivism means deciding a boy is actually a girls because he likes to play with barbies. See Mermaids Barbi-GI Joe slide.

I am curious why someone would think the bolded part above. Having sex based rights has got nothing to do with someone's key defining point. It just means male and female people should have the option for segregation in certain situations.

Its funny how there is no concept of idea pollenation and cross pollenation between online formats too. Funny really. The idea that a concept or an ideology remains confined to a particular format and people don't use multiple places is actually quite funny.

I never said any particular place on the internet. I said that the twitterati and the Instas couldn't grasp The Rest of the Internet and how there was More Right Wing Stuff out there than on MN...

I find it amusing the specific point that our resident activist picked up was how Teens Only Use Certain Media not that teens have a range of political views which may not necessary be as left wing and progressive as some think is typical of their generation.

I find it amusing the specific point that our resident activist picked up was how Teens Only Use Certain Media not that teens have a range of political views which may not necessary be as left wing and progressive as some think is typical of their generation.

They picked up on it because they have nothing to say to the substantive point.

Quite.

Its amused me. I have been very amused by the demonstration this afternoon.

Exactly, @ArabellaScott.

It is not as if those certain factions were not warned, it is not as if history is not littered with examples, but no, the self righteous supposedly liberal, tolerant factions just couldn't, or wouldn't, hear above their own shouting, denigrating, name calling and slurring of those who disagree with them.

Why are they now surprised that those they rounded on, vilified and refused to listen to are saying Okay then, fuck you, I'll go where my voice is heard.

Schools should also be apolitical, all publicly funded services should. How the hell is that in any shape or form 'far right'?

It is women driving everything when it comes to this issue - politicians, at best, are picking up on what has already been discussed, analysed, pointed out or demanded.

It is campaign groups such as 'Sex Matters' that are driving the demands for sex to be clarified in law - this will continue with or without the Tories; although, of course it would be helpful if we had some people in the chamber who actually understood the issue and who are prepared to speak out about it - to challenge Starmer every step of the way.