I Haven't Changed My Politics, It's Society And Politics That Has Changed

[hackey lad]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

So do I. It's a massive problem and getting worse.

 

We no longer live in a world of certainties or even facts. Everything is up for grabs and its no longer possible to predict the future with any degree of accuracy so anxiety is high. This brings with it a sense of insecurity, and a fear of being left behind. Add to that a lack of community and dearth of common experiences that bond people together and you have the ingredients for a perfect storm of mental illhealth. 

 

No wonder we're all feeling troubled and despondent. 

 

 

 

I'm not feeling troubled or despondent .

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Mister M said:

Further this, use of "the silent majority", an unknown, but frequently referenced body of people who are passive in this apparent change that's happening to them, but who nevertheless agree that the changes are 'bad' in some way.

"The silent majority" do exist.

I cannot remember ever having met anyone who agrees with removing historical statues, or who thinks trans rights are so important they trump free speech or women only spaces or women only sports. Nor have I met anyone who does anything other than laugh when they're quoted the ludicrous acronym LGBTQI+.

To the majority, probably the great majority, these are non issues. Yet the media imply everyone, or even most people, are really bothered by it all. They're not, they're too busy laughing at how preposterous it is.

But the point is, even if you disagree, there is no doubt at all that 20 or 30 years ago almost everyone would have laughed at these ideas, i.e. the world has moved to a more left wing authoritarian stance.

 

3 hours ago, Mister M said:

Interesting you apportion all the blame to the left, but there you go.

I am not blaming the left, I am saying society has become more left wing and authoritarian. I am fully aware that the most authoritarian actions taken by any government in this country, possibly forever, were taken by a Tory government, namely the draconian Covid restrictions. Obviously Labour were egging them on and wanting even more of it, but the Tories had a huge majority and did not have to succumb to that pressure. Which just proves that even the Tory party are, compared to 20 or 30 years ago, left wing and authoritarian.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Mister M said:

I know that you've said before that you've have been prevented from taking photos of your child at a swimming competition. Yes it's regrettable, but happened because organisations now have safeguarding policies, simply because we know how devious some people are. 

There is no proportionate reason for that infamous ban, none at all, ZILCH. It achieves little if anything at all. And what is really worrying is many people I talk to about that ludicrous ban look at me like I am wanting something unreasonable. Yet rationally, and historically, what I want is perfectly reasonable, demonstrating the depth of modern acceptance of authoritarian diktats which have not been proven necessary by any statistical research.

 

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

Good thread. It's certainly something that needs discussing.

 

We seem to be going through a period of continual flux. The world is changing faster than we know how to deal with it, and everything has become the subject of debate, polarised opinions and echo chambers.

Common sense now seems to be a historical concept. Worrying when you think how much we are going to depend on these people to run the world in the not too distant future..

 

One of the problems seems to be a withering sense of proportion, both literally and figuratively.

In attempting to show both/all  sides of an argument, each is given equal credence which they don't all necessarily deserve. 

A brilliant and thoughtful post.

 

3 hours ago, Mister M said:

 the rise of social media has given us all an insight into how uncommon sense is.

Very true.

And it is probably also responsible for much of this drift towards authoritarianism.

 

2 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

Should we try a right wing Socialist economy?

Would that be the worst of all worlds ?

Banned from doing even more stuff, told what to think and not think, and at the same time being poorer ?

Edited May 12, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

When they live in the mad hatter's world,  I don't think it will ever come right for them whoever takes charge.

We do live in a mad hatters world, fortunately not forever. Not because I think it will get any better, odds on it will continue getting worse, but because we all die.....

54 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

I think you will find most are not.

I am not surprised mental health is rising at an alarming rate, especially amongst the younger generation. The poor souls only used to have to worry about whether to take French or German at school, now they are getting brainwashed into wondering whether they are a boy or a girl.

Desperate times.

Plus the fact they missed 7 months of schooling, and even more months of restricted social intercourse.....

[Chekhov]

53 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

I'm not feeling troubled or despondent .

You might not be. How old are you ? Do you remember the freer 1980s and 90s ?

People can get used to anything, esp if they think it's normal and have not experienced anything better. I think this partly explains the fact that (apparently) a higher percentage of younger people thought the Covid restrictions weren't that bad, despite the fact they had little to gain from them. They're conditioned to think being told what to do and banned from stuff is "normal". 

[Mister M]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

"The silent majority" do exist.

The term is used in the political sense to denote those who are defined as 'mainstream'.

I'm not sure that any attempt has been made to study this group, probably because it's so ill defined.

On top of that those that do use it, have used it in the past for nefarious purposes.

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I cannot remember ever having met anyone who agrees with removing historical statues, or who thinks trans rights are so important they trump free speech or women only spaces or women only sports. Nor have I met anyone who does anything other than laugh when they're quoted the ludicrous acronym LGBTQI+.

I think perhaps it was yourself I responded to when this was raised, is either widen your circle of friends, or at least encourage the friends you do have to walk a mile the shoes of someone who doesn't fit the hetero '2.4 kids' model of life.

I don't particularly like being part of an acronym either, but in political and marketing terms, that's what we've been reduced to  whether it's YUPPIES, DINKS, CHAVS 

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

To the majority, probably the great majority, these are non issues. Yet the media imply everyone, or even most people, are really bothered by it all. They're not, they're too busy laughing at how preposterous it is.

But the point is, even if you disagree, there is no doubt at all that 20 or 30 years ago almost everyone would have laughed at these ideas, i.e. the world has moved to a more left wing authoritarian stance.

 

Once again, if you thought that the people who lived life outside your bubble is as described in some journalist's imagination, then you'd be disappointed by the reality.

 

With regards to the great majority - I don't make any claim that I know their views, nor would I be so vain as to assume they'd think the same way as me. 

However I do know that across my lifetime (I'm 53) there has been a transformational shift in attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I only use this example because I'm one of them.

Just look at the British Social Attitude surveys across the period for evidence of that. So possibly in the 1960s and 1970s various human and gay rights groups were the target of abuse, condescension and vile 'humour'. Thanks to the work of people like Peter Tatchell and groups like Stonewall, attitudes, laws, and norms have changed.

That hasn't happened because of a more left wing, authoritarian stance. In fact I think it was Margaret Thatcher and Janet Young who with a right wing authoritarian stance introduced Section 28 in IIRC 1986. 

[hackey lad]

3 minutes ago, Mister M said:

The term is used in the political sense to denote those who are defined as 'mainstream'.

I'm not sure that any attempt has been made to study this group, probably because it's so ill defined.

On top of that those that do use it, have used it in the past for nefarious purposes.

I think perhaps it was yourself I responded to when this was raised, is either widen your circle of friends, or at least encourage the friends you do have to walk a mile the shoes of someone who doesn't fit the hetero '2.4 kids' model of life.

I don't particularly like being part of an acronym either, but in political and marketing terms, that's what we've been reduced to  whether it's YUPPIES, DINKS, CHAVS 

Once again, if you thought that the people who lived life outside your bubble is as described in some journalist's imagination, then you'd be disappointed by the reality.

 

With regards to the great majority - I don't make any claim that I know their views, nor would I be so vain as to assume they'd think the same way as me. 

However I do know that across my lifetime (I'm 53) there has been a transformational shift in attitudes towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I only use this example because I'm one of them.

Just look at the British Social Attitude surveys across the period for evidence of that. So possibly in the 1960s and 1970s various human and gay rights groups were the target of abuse, condescension and vile 'humour'. Thanks to the work of people like Peter Tatchell and groups like Stonewall, attitudes, laws, and norms have changed.

That hasn't happened because of a more left wing, authoritarian stance. In fact I think it was Margaret Thatcher and Janet Young who with a right wing authoritarian stance introduced Section 28 in IIRC 1986. 

Whats a "Dink"  ?

[Mister M]

Just now, hackey lad said:

Whats a "Dink"  ?

Dual Income No Kids

[hackey lad]

6 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Dual Income No Kids

[Mister M]

56 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

There is no proportionate reason for that infamous ban, none at all, ZILCH. It achieves little if anything at all. And what is really worrying is many people I talk to about that ludicrous ban look at me like I am wanting something unreasonable. Yet rationally, and historically, what I want is perfectly reasonable, demonstrating the depth of modern acceptance of authoritarian diktats which have not been proven necessary by any statistical research.

 

But it happened here in the UK and to greater or lesser extent in the majority of other countries.

Those health officials, like ours in the UK, didn't have the luxury of speculating in a theoretical way. The decisions they made were on the basis of a disease no one knew anything about, and an impact on people was so wide and varied. They had to inform Ministers who then made policies on the back of those decisions. I think somewhere in the region of 180,000 people in this country alone died from the virus. 

In years to come there will be comparisons made of those countries who had fewer lockdowns, compared with those which had stricter lockdowns and their mortality and illness rates will be compared.

I just think it's way too soon to make any declamatory statements about the issue, simply because top epidemiologists are still collating the data.

EDIT: And by the way, if you're on about the 'silent majority', you might want to consider a lot of opinion polls in the lockdown period which consistently showed the public wanting longer, and stricter lockdowns. 

If you're going to claim support for your ideas by reference to 'the silent majority', then be prepared for when they don't agree with you.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Mister M