Biden team faced "tirade" at meeting with Chinese over America's poor human rights record in "Diplomatic humiliation"

[Hawki]

You are correct, but you're talking to an avowed communist, who isn't going to agree to your terms. Communists are well known for calling "liberal" a "right-wing" position, because anything that opposes communism is right-wing to them.

Well, I'm going to take neutral ground for a moment.

The US does seem to be an oddity compared to other similar countries in that "liberal" is regarded as left-wing, whereas if I called myself a liberal here, people would probably think of the Liberal Party, which is centre-right. However, I'd argue that liberalism is left-wing in the social sense, if not the economic sense (doesn't help that it's a very broad term). So I guess if I had to call myself anything, it would be "socially liberal, economically leftist" (though I guess I'm a Greenie in that the Greens get my primary vote most of the time, followed by Labour).

However, I've never seen any evidence, statistical or otherwise, that university faculty doesn't lean left. But if we're dividing universities between left, right, and centre, here's the stats from a 2018 Gallup poll.

46%: Moderate

44%: Left

9%: Conservative

Basically, it doesn't matter how you define liberalism and place it on the political spectrum, the trend remains the same. Universities are overly left-wing. It's, like, the most obvious thing you can say, because as I mentioned, some careers tend to attract some kind of people more than others. And again, I'm not even saying that's inherently a problem, because I don't believe universities should be obliged to head-hunt people of certain political beliefs.

This thread is largely about China's human rights record,

It is?

Fuck, I don't know anymore.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The US does seem to be an oddity compared to other similar countries in that "liberal" is regarded as left-wing, whereas if I called myself a liberal here, people would probably think of the Liberal Party, which is centre-right.

I'd have thought it was Australia, not the US, being the oddity there. And only because of the name of a party. By comparison, the word "Republican" means a different thing in the US to places that aren't republics.

 

[Silvanus]

?

Blech, I didn't see that. Well, that's silly. The rest stands.

This is more a response to Sean, but yes, I've argued that the US has the moral high ground in that it's less shit than China.

I don't know which particular post Sean is quoting of mine, but as I've had to say again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, is that because just because one party is worse than the other, it doesn't stop the less worse party from being bad.

That's true, but it damn well stops either party claiming much solid footing on the "moral high ground".

If one party is criticising another party, it severely weakens their position if they're guilty of something similar, even if it's to a lesser degree. It makes the argument seem unprincipled and shallow. That's why shameless hacks like the Global Times bother to cobble together stuff like the infographic we saw earlier in the first place.

And frankly, it's kind of disturbing. For instance, I'd argue that Australia has the moral high ground over the US in its prison system, and a country like Finland has the moral high ground over Australia in its prison system. If there's no moral high ground, that all imprisonment everywhere is equal to each other, then that's a pretty nightmarish view on society.

That's not really what the "moral high ground" is taken to mean, though. It doesn't just imply that the party in question is the least worst, still up to their knees in shit; it implies they have a solid and principled basis from which to make judgements.

The treatment of the Uyghurs is magnitudes worse. But if the US is to pass judgement, it has shot its own persuasiveness in the foot with its own systemic problems (and seeming unwillingness to address them).

 

[tstorm823]

The US does seem to be an oddity compared to other similar countries in that "liberal" is regarded as left-wing, whereas if I called myself a liberal here, people would probably think of the Liberal Party, which is centre-right.

Nobody (but me) uses the terms consistently, even within countries. And if everyone is an oddity, then nobody is

 

[Hawki]

I'd have thought it was Australia, not the US, being the oddity there. And only because of the name of a party. By comparison, the word "Republican" means a different thing in the US to places that aren't republics.

Well, what's odd in one country is going to seem normal in another. I did a quick look of political parties in "CANZUK" countries, and it seems that liberal is centre-right in Aus and NZ, but centre-left in Canada and the UK. So, fair point. On the other, the US does seem to be more right wing overall than many of those countries. Like, the Democrats seem to be centre-right overall, even if it's got a progressive wing, and the Republicans...yikes.

Snip.

Once again, this has become a question of semantics. But fine. I have/can/do argue that at this point in time, China is worse than the US. We can leave questions of moral high ground aside if you don't want to use the term.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The treatment of the Uyghurs is magnitudes worse

Why?

 

[Seanchaidh]

However, I've never seen any evidence, statistical or otherwise, that university faculty doesn't lean left. But if we're dividing universities between left, right, and centre, here's the stats from a 2018 Gallup poll.

46%: Moderate

44%: Left

9%: Conservative

Basically, it doesn't matter how you define liberalism and place it on the political spectrum, the trend remains the same. Universities are overly left-wing. It's, like, the most obvious thing you can say, because as I mentioned, some careers tend to attract some kind of people more than others. And again, I'm not even saying that's inherently a problem, because I don't believe universities should be obliged to head-hunt people of certain political beliefs.

A majority self-identifies as "moderate" or conservative, and this is somehow "overwhelmingly left" or "overly left-wing". Meanwhile in reality, econ departments are funded by big business and ignore the contributions of Marx and others in the Marxian tradition. And the TV says that chuds like Joe Biden are "on the left".

 

[Hawki]

A majority self-identifies as "moderate" or conservative, and this is somehow "overwhelmingly left" or "overly left-wing".

Why are you combing "moderate" and "conservative?"

I just gave you 44% Left to 9% Conservative. That's about 5:1.

Even if you combine Moderate and Conservative, you get 55%. If you combine Moderate and Left, you get 91%.

Have you got any actual sources disproving the numbers I've provided? I mean, I can keep citing figures, but if your response is simply "nuh-uh," what's the point?

Meanwhile in reality, econ departments are funded by big business and ignore the contributions of Marx and others in the Marxian tradition. And the TV says that chuds like Joe Biden are "on the left".

First of all, the question was universities, not econ departments, so this is a red herring. I'm certain that different fields will attract different people (social sciences is overwhelmingly left wing for example).

Second, I've already stated that the business sector is overwhelmingly right wing, so this isn't the kind of "gotcha" you probably think it is.

Third, do you have any actual sources? I'm skeptical of Marx's "contributions" to economics (frankly, if there's an economist who needs more attention these days it's Kate Raworth), but even if economists are trying to suppress Marx, they're doing a piss-poor job of it, because it's a philosophy that refuses to die. I mean, when studying evolution, there's a reason why we spend more time with Charles Darwin than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Fourth, I agree with you that Biden isn't on the left (he's more a centrist), but this isn't about Biden, it's about universities, so it's academic to the question of whether universities skew left or not. And in the scope of both personal experience and every study I could find, the answer is yes.

If you want to refute that, present some actual data.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Why are you combing "moderate" and "conservative?"

I just gave you 44% Left to 9% Conservative. That's about 5:1.

Even if you combine Moderate and Conservative, you get 55%. If you combine Moderate and Left, you get 91%.

Have you got any actual sources disproving the numbers I've provided? I mean, I can keep citing figures, but if your response is simply "nuh-uh," what's the point?

When the problem is with your logic and not with the figures, no, citing additional sources that say the same shit that doesn't support your argument won't help. The largest group there is moderate; universities are overwhelmingly moderate. A relative lack of people who identify as retrograde doesn't make that not the case.

First of all, the question was universities, not econ departments, so this is a red herring. I'm certain that different fields will attract different people (social sciences is overwhelmingly left wing for example).

Not really. First of all, economics, even such as it is, is among those social sciences. Sociology sometimes includes some reading of Marx for historical purposes (Sociological Theory classes, which makes sense since he's one of the big three founders of sociology), but mainly focuses on theoretical outgrowths of Durkheim and Weber; not revolutionary, not "conflict" oriented: functionalist and symbolically interactionist. Rational choice and game theory are the big things in American university sociology departments; very dry, very liberal. And I mean liberal in your Australian "classical" Lockean sense. Then there's political science, which absurdly likes to say nothing at all about class conflict: you'd think they'd be reading theorists who actually accomplished something in the realm of politics, like say, Mao or Lenin, but no. Weird! Instead they hold classes and seminars wondering why there's a downward trend in trust in political institutions and finding any excuse to say the reason is something other than the increasing corruption that is a natural consequence of capitalism. Ok, OK, I exaggerate, they will entertain the theory that "money in politics" has something to do with it since it's the extremely obvious answer. But that's about as far as it goes. So that leaves mainly psychology, perhaps the least politically relevant of the social sciences (which isn't to say that it is irrelevant, just that it is less so than political science, sociology and economics).

Much of that self-identified "left" category is people like Neera Tanden or Hillary Clinton: people who will claim to be "progressive" because it's better for their personal brands and because they think not being as utterly reprehensible as the other party makes them forward-thinking and compassionate, you ungrateful peasants.

 

[Silvanus]

Why?

That's already been elaborated in various posts which have gone unaddressed.

I'm skeptical of Marx's "contributions" to economics

You shouldn't be. He's universally recognised in the field, by figures throughout the political spectrum, as one of the most influential economic thinkers of all time. Countries throughout the world have been governed according to lines of thought that (to some extent) derive from, or refer to, Marx's work. He gave one of the most lasting critiques of capitalism in history. Though he didn't invent socialism, his polemic popularised it more than anyone else, and turned it into a global force by the twentieth century. He moulded the ideals of Lenin, Li Dazhao, Liebknecht & Luxemburg, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, & numerous Latin American leaders, all of whom have had an enormous impact on modern history and politics.

Being sceptical of his contributions to economics is like being sceptical of Hegel's contributions to Western philosophy.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's already been elaborated in various posts which have gone unaddressed.

No, it's been asserted in various replies which didn't engage the point.

 

[Hawki]

You shouldn't be. He's universally recognised in the field, by figures throughout the political spectrum, as one of the most influential economic thinkers of all time. Countries throughout the world have been governed according to lines of thought that (to some extent) derive from, or refer to, Marx's work. He gave one of the most lasting critiques of capitalism in history. Though he didn't invent socialism, his polemic popularised it more than anyone else, and turned it into a global force by the twentieth century. He moulded the ideals of Lenin, Li Dazhao, Liebknecht & Luxemburg, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, & numerous Latin American leaders, all of whom have had an enormous impact on modern history and politics.

Being sceptical of his contributions to economics is like being sceptical of Hegel's contributions to Western philosophy.

I might need to clarify - I'm not saying that Marx hasn't had an influence on the history of the 20th century, I'm skeptical as to whether it counts as a contribution to humanity.

To clarify even further, I don't think it's fair to blame Marx for the heinous actions done in his name (no honest person would seriously blame Darwin for the Nazis for instance), but Marx is a man who was right about some things, wrong about other things, and to be frank, if not for Lenin, I doubt we'd even be talking about him.

 

[Gergar12]

I am about to make 100% of the people on this thread mad, but here I go. Progressives and conservatives like to cherry-pick which global problems to solve, and cherry-pick the solutions to solve them.

At least the plurality of conservatives does not think that climate change is solvable, or worth solving, or that it’s man-made according to various polling. They believe in the status quo, and in companies like the oil companies to dictate how America should implement its environmental and fiscal policy. Despite the mountain of evidence, they refuse to shake up the status quo because that could threaten their economic power, and or their purse-strings via things like higher gas prices, and higher electric bills. When the world is undergoing a massive extinction of animals, and plants, wildfires, polar ice caps melting, and so fore, climate change is a problem whether Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, or the Tea Party believe it or not.

Progressives are not any better. They don’t believe that a more authoritarian world like a democratic socialist and FDR’s VP Henry Wallace describes where most of the world isn’t free does not have drastic policy implications or believe in a toothless policy of diplomacy to solve it or believe that should any real crisis occurs most western countries will back up the US, despite evidence on the contrary. The last time we had this many autocratic countries we had World War 2. When Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, Russia, China, and Iran are all run by dictators or autocrats that is a problem whether the Squad, Sanders, and Warren believe it to be or not.

I don’t agree with everything centrist do, I believe some problems require radical solutions like the above, but they are right now the only sane people on these problems, but I wish that wasn’t the case.

 

[Hawki]

I am about to make 100% of the people on this thread mad, but here I go. Progressives and conservatives like to cherry-pick which global problems to solve, and cherry-pick the solutions to solve them.

At least the plurality of conservatives does not think that climate change is solvable, or worth solving, or that it’s man-made according to various polling. They believe in the status quo, and in companies like the oil companies to dictate how America should implement its environmental and fiscal policy. Despite the mountain of evidence, they refuse to shake up the status quo because that could threaten their economic power, and or their purse-strings via things like higher gas prices, and higher electric bills. When the world is undergoing a massive extinction of animals, and plants, wildfires, polar ice caps melting, and so fore, climate change is a problem whether Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, or the Tea Party believe it or not.

Progressives are not any better. They don’t believe that a more authoritarian world like a democratic socialist and FDR’s VP Henry Wallace describes where most of the world isn’t free does not have drastic policy implications or believe in a toothless policy of diplomacy to solve it or believe that should any real crisis occurs most western countries will back up the US, despite evidence on the contrary. The last time we had this many autocratic countries we had World War 2. When Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, Russia, China, and Iran are all run by dictators or autocrats that is a problem whether the Squad, Sanders, and Warren believe it to be or not.

I don’t agree with everything centrist do, I believe some problems require radical solutions like the above, but they are right now the only sane people on these problems, but I wish that wasn’t the case.

As to that...

I 100% agree about conservatives. They've delayed action on climate change for decades (this isn't just the US, Australia's just as, if not even more of a laggard, and we can 'thank' the LNP for that), and there's a strong chance that the world will suffer because of it. It's frankly nothing short of criminal.

As for progressives, this is a bit different. I don't think progressivism is really authoratarian in the West right now. Left-wing authoratarianism obviously exists, but I dont' think Sanders and "the Squad" are arguing for that. Just, y'know, minimum wage, healthcare for all, winding back of the military, etc. The US is a laggard on these fronts compared to MEDCs.

I absolutely agree that that all the countries you list have issues, but that's not really the fault of progressives. Statistically, there's more people living in democracies now than WWII, for starters. But yes, all those countries you listed have issues, but I don't think it's on the onus of progressives to do anything. It's not really on the shoulders of anyone. We all remember the disaster of Iraq for instance.

Certainly I have my problems with progressives (e.g. "wokeism," which by this point is an established philosophy in the US and UK), but that doesn't come close to my problems with conservatives. Which, incidentally, is why I have more problems with China than the US - I can point out problems with both, while stating that one is worse than the other.

Or not, according to this thread.

 

[tstorm823]

They've delayed action on climate change for decades (this isn't just the US, Australia's just as, if not even more of a laggard, and we can 'thank' the LNP for that), and there's a strong chance that the world will suffer because of it.

I would argue that no meaningful action to deal with climate change has been delayed. The allegory is the imaginary first people to travel to another solar system, and the story goes as follows: the first group of people are sent into space to travel to another star system. The journey is long and takes many years, and when they arrive, the second group to leave is there waiting to greet them. The moral of the story is that when you've got technology advancing rapidly, early deployment of the technology may not be the fastest way to reach your goal. Much is made of oil companies hiding climate data, but spending billions or trillions on crappy 80s solar panels would not have made a meaningful dent in climate change.

 

[Gergar12]

I would argue that no meaningful action to deal with climate change has been delayed. The allegory is the imaginary first people to travel to another solar system, and the story goes as follows: the first group of people are sent into space to travel to another star system. The journey is long and takes many years, and when they arrive, the second group to leave is there waiting to greet them. The moral of the story is that when you've got technology advancing rapidly, early deployment of the technology may not be the fastest way to reach your goal. Much is made of oil companies hiding climate data, but spending billions or trillions on crappy 80s solar panels would not have made a meaningful dent in climate change.

Why not nuclear. oh, right the idiots in the Green Party railed against it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Why not nuclear. oh, right the idiots in the Green Party railed against it.

yeah, that's definitely why

 

[Hawki]

I would argue that no meaningful action to deal with climate change has been delayed. The allegory is the imaginary first people to travel to another solar system, and the story goes as follows: the first group of people are sent into space to travel to another star system. The journey is long and takes many years, and when they arrive, the second group to leave is there waiting to greet them. The moral of the story is that when you've got technology advancing rapidly, early deployment of the technology may not be the fastest way to reach your goal. Much is made of oil companies hiding climate data, but spending billions or trillions on crappy 80s solar panels would not have made a meaningful dent in climate change.

Except we've known about climate change since the late 19th century, and the oil industry has spread misinformation about it since the mid 20th. Imagine what time and money could have been spent on making solar panels cheaper and more efficient (among other things) if we didn't have to deal with climate denial from the fossil fuels industry, and the political parties who bought into it (or were bought out).

Why not nuclear. oh, right the idiots in the Green Party railed against it.

The Greens definitely have to answer for that as well.

However one feels about nuclear, it's still a better option than fossil fuels at this point. It's utter madness how nuclear plants are being shut down at this point.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Seanchaidh]

I just want to understand in what world people can think that the Green Party of all things is the reason for an important policy result. How do I get to that world? Is there a portal somewhere?

The fucking DSA has more influence. But the Green Party needs to answer for..! What?