Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Are large internet content companies censoring political viewpoints?

67 replies to this topic
Raavi
  • Raavi

    Mornings are for coffee and contemplation

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2016
    Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#31

Posted 22 October 2016 - 08:07 PM

Good point. Is there a way to check what is and isn't accessible through r . estricted mode other than scrolling through every video and counting it? Got on restricted mode and their vids were still there; is there an easier way to verify? I was outraged more than anything since PragerU is so effin tame that I was just confused as to why something so benign would be restricted. Actually, if TYT content is blocked I wanna see what the actual content itself is, because that Cenk guy loves cursing people out.

 

Comparing a restricted and non-restricted page is the only way to check. What is and what isn't restricted seems arbitrary at least to a point, anything that as much as vaguely has a mention of or reference to alcohol, sex, drugs or violence seems to be hidden, very apparent when comparing Buzzfeed normal and Buzzfeed on restricted mode, or even searching the word "gun"- browsing on normal you get real firearms, on restricted-mode you get toy guns. Same goes for TYT, they had 20+ videos hidden in the last 24 hours alone. Other channels even seem to be completely or for 99.9% restricted like is the case with Rockstar Games, the only video available is this one. Seems as though the filter has a very broad brush that mainly (and to a degree arbitrarily so) targets the larger channels, regardless of political leaning, contrary to what PragerU claimed. 

  • El Diablo likes this

Spuds725
  • Spuds725

    Drunk on Power

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2003
  • United-States
  • Helpfulness Award
    Contribution Award [GTAF]

#32

Posted 22 October 2016 - 08:07 PM

If you want to make this a general debate, a more generic title might be in order: 'Are large internet content companies censoring political viewpoints?'.

 

 

Even better-- updated--- Thanks.

  • 609_uu likes this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#33

Posted 22 October 2016 - 10:30 PM

Multinational corporations have censored political viewpoints both internal and public (to the extent possible) for ages.  I don't see why this would stop now.  Considering the nature of the internet, there's no shortage of places to spout radical ideas.  And by design, the web makes ideas harder to censor.

 

In the case of Google and the major social media platforms, there is only a commitment to free speech to the extent that it's profitable to do so.  Anything more is just for appearances.  No matter how innovative the firm, we can't realistically hold a corporation to any standard of activism.  The tech. powerhouses in the west are relatively progressive.

  • El Diablo, Eutyphro and 609_uu like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#34

Posted 23 October 2016 - 07:19 AM

Also I made it clear I don't like debating

Then, in the nicest possible way, you should probably find a bit of the forum that isn't called "debate and discussion" to post in.
No, it wasn't. Voodoo moved it on literally the second post.
  • 609_uu likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#35

Posted 23 October 2016 - 01:29 PM

 I don't enjoy debating as I'm stressed out as it is. P.S. the reason I called Marwin and mtd liberals is because again, the posts that I've seen of there's have all been pretty left leaning. 

when-someone-calls-you-a-liberal-3467372

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, mr quick and 3 others like this

Piggsy pls
  • Piggsy pls

    pls

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2013
  • United-States

#36

Posted 23 October 2016 - 02:23 PM

Oh well. Certain viewpoints don't deserve a platform, simple as that. Specially the type of trash that comes PragerU. Not saying I'm for censorship, but in certain cases (particularly when it comes to a free public service owned by a corporation) I'm not against it, either. You could just as well argue that this forum is for censorship, since certain sh*t (racism or sexism for example) doesn't fly here, and for good reason.
  • mr quick likes this

X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#37

Posted 23 October 2016 - 02:56 PM

Twitter and Facebook are not really competitors. Most people use both. Facebook has features Twitter doesn't offer and vice versa. They may both be considered 'social media', but they are very different in purpose.

Twitter is a microblogging system, meant as a broadcast between blog posts. It is effectively a broadcaster, since tweets are not private.

Facebook, on the other hand, is a walled garden acquittance communicator. While it has public conservation, Facebook also offer features such as event scheduling, post restrictions and much more.

I've not yet heard of people moving from Facebook to Twitter or the other way around, whenever news of them doing something detestable to their users. They don't offer the same services. It's like being annoyed with Ford and then going off and buying a scooter. A car and a moped are not the same thing. Although, there are strong similarities in their functionality.

There have been attempts at creating real alternatives to Facebook, but those alternatives combined have less traffic than YouTube's main competitors' DailyMotion and Vimeo.

So in practical terms, Facebook has no competition. Hell, Facebook is actually becoming a competition to YouTube, what with all the videos uploaded exclusively to Facebook.

 

Of course they're different, Svip, but they're still competitors.  What your describing is direct competition, not indirect competition, which is when companies in a common industry offer similar but different products and services, ie. McDonald's vs. Subway.

 

I mentioned Twitter only because I, personally, migrated from FB to Twitter; it was the first thing that came to mind.  When you do an industry search on FB competitors, Twitter is almost always listed as a competitor.  From most sources, however, it seems like Google is their biggest threat.

 

Raavi made some good points earlier with regards to advertising revenues and placement on YouTube and how it affects censorship.  Vimeo is a great competitor to YouTube, but Vimeo is less about revenue generation and more about professionally edited video portfolios.  As for DailyMotion, I think they've limited themselves to content.  What needs to be done is to mass migrate a few major YouTube content creators over to an alternate platform.  Major media networks do this often, essentially signing big name anchors and broadcasters from other networks in order to redirect viewership.  The problem I see with YouTube is that it just does what it wants without consulting its biggest revenue generators.  If a handful of its creators, however, suddenly jumped ship to a new platform, I'm sure YouTube would begin reconsidering its policies on internet video content. 

 

Also personally, my peeve with censoring videos, no matter how controversial or unreputable they may be, is that it's up to us, as individuals, to determine what is accurate and truthful, and not to be told what is right and wrong.  A good example of this is the Zeitgeist films on YouTube.  They're baseless conspiracy theory films, but I would never suggest censoring them just because I think they're utter sh*t.  Some of you probably already know my views on free speech, though: live and die by it.


blaze
  • blaze

    Big Homie

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • Macau
  • Super Special Gold Star 2006
    Draw Contest Booby Prize 2016
    Campaign Poster Booby Prize 2016
    Doggo-Chop Winner 2016

#38

Posted 23 October 2016 - 03:02 PM

Youtube has competitors, but those don't offer the type of monetization schemes YouTube does, and that is what most creators want at the end of the day- to make a quick buck, or wherever possible even a living off of their content. Merchandise, donations and brand deals aside, the only available route to most is on-page advertisements; brands placing ads either on the sides, beginning or middle of the video. Doing so opens the creator up to advertising guidelines, why are they there? Put quite simply no mainstream brand is going to want to have their good name attached to a video for example titled "Are there too many n---" by channel GrandEugenicsWizard, even if told through cute artsy stick figures. Most of this "censorship" comes down to what is and what isn't advertiser-friendly, and for that YouTube has clear guidelines.

 

There is a caveat, however, whilst there are filters in place that automatically flag/remove certain videos, most of the flagging is done through (mass)-reporting by YouTube users (or in the case of copyrighted content, copyright holders), a system that is notoriously prone to abuse. What's more, once a video is 'unjustly' flagged it can take quite a while for the age-restriction to be reversed, especially on smaller channels. Judging by the fact that I can now freely access the allegedly age-restricted videos when logged out, this has every appearance of being a case of the latter, rather than YouTube censoring anything.

 

As for them not being available in restricted mode, a completely optional broad-brush filter used by many a school and concerned parent, being some kind of liberal conspiracy - Half of The Young Turks, YouTube's biggest liberal news channel's content is unavailable, hell half of Buzzfeed's content is too for crying out loud. Talk about crying wolf.

 

p much this

 

  • El Diablo and slimeball supreme like this

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    anti-pasto

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004
  • Australia

#39

Posted 24 October 2016 - 12:48 PM

Hmm why would schools want to restrict students from accessing right-wing propganda? I'm happy high schoolers can't look up a video about how America is totally not racist and blacks are just winers. 

Really? So children being fed left-wing propaganda is fine?

I find this trend in the West to move towards extreme left wing ideas to be deeply disturbing. I'm glad that people are fighting back. Hope Trump wins as well because I'm tired of this PC, left wing bullsh*t rhetoric that likes to paint anyone with a different view as spreading propaganda and/or as being backwards. The irony is that the very people who claim to be fighting for civil liberties are restricting it for others. 

  • Dondara and Happy Hunter like this

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    we live as we dream--alone

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#40

Posted 24 October 2016 - 01:25 PM

I wish 'the West' was moving towards 'extreme left-wing ideas', but it really isn't.

  • Tchuck, mr quick and slimeball supreme like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#41

Posted 24 October 2016 - 03:29 PM

I find this trend in the West to move towards extreme left wing ideas to be deeply disturbing.


This "trend" is, to be frank, utter bollocks. If you look at the political affiliation of most Western countries over the last 10 years, the last two or three have actually been characterised by a lurch to the right. The assertion that political trends in the West are leaning further left is simply wrong.
  • Triple Vacuum Seal likes this

609_uu
  • 609_uu

    I sexually identify as Buzzard Attack Helicopter

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2014
  • Finland

#42

Posted 24 October 2016 - 03:31 PM Edited by 609_uu, 24 October 2016 - 03:32 PM.

Oh well. Certain viewpoints don't deserve a platform, simple as that. Specially the type of trash that comes PragerU. Not saying I'm for censorship, but in certain cases (particularly when it comes to a free public service owned by a corporation) I'm not against it, either. You could just as well argue that this forum is for censorship, since certain sh*t (racism or sexism for example) doesn't fly here, and for good reason.

Is it racism if I don´t want mass immigration to Finland because it costs us tax payers about 800 000 000 euros a year that´s expensive?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#43

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:01 PM

The financial argument is usually used to try and give a justification for racism that doesn't make you look racist. Given that immigrants are net wealth creators, the assertion that immigration "costs" taxpayers X gross without taking into account the net cost-to-benefit sort of misses the point, and suggests to me that the actual cost isn't really the problem.
  • Tchuck and Piggsy pls like this

609_uu
  • 609_uu

    I sexually identify as Buzzard Attack Helicopter

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2014
  • Finland

#44

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:16 PM

The financial argument is usually used to try and give a justification for racism that doesn't make you look racist. Given that immigrants are net wealth creators, the assertion that immigration "costs" taxpayers X gross without taking into account the net cost-to-benefit sort of misses the point, and suggests to me that the actual cost isn't really the problem.

Work oriented immigration is good but humanitarian isn't because these refugees do about 17 times more rapes than Finnish people.

Piggsy pls
  • Piggsy pls

    pls

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2013
  • United-States

#45

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:18 PM

Oh well. Certain viewpoints don't deserve a platform, simple as that. Specially the type of trash that comes PragerU. Not saying I'm for censorship, but in certain cases (particularly when it comes to a free public service owned by a corporation) I'm not against it, either. You could just as well argue that this forum is for censorship, since certain sh*t (racism or sexism for example) doesn't fly here, and for good reason.

Is it racism if I don´t want mass immigration to Finland because it costs us tax payers about 800 000 000 euros a year that´s expensive?
If that argument weren't simply an excuse for people's prejudices, then no I suppose it wouldn't be "racist". The "cost of keeping these people here" rhetoric is greatly exaggerated and used as a scare tactic.

Also, that had f*ck all to do with anything I just said.
  • mr quick, Melchior and slimeball supreme like this

609_uu
  • 609_uu

    I sexually identify as Buzzard Attack Helicopter

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2014
  • Finland

#46

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:25 PM

Oh well. Certain viewpoints don't deserve a platform, simple as that. Specially the type of trash that comes PragerU. Not saying I'm for censorship, but in certain cases (particularly when it comes to a free public service owned by a corporation) I'm not against it, either. You could just as well argue that this forum is for censorship, since certain sh*t (racism or sexism for example) doesn't fly here, and for good reason.

Is it racism if I don´t want mass immigration to Finland because it costs us tax payers about 800 000 000 euros a year that´s expensive?
If that argument weren't simply an excuse for people's prejudices, then no I suppose it wouldn't be "racist". The "cost of keeping these people here" rhetoric is greatly exaggerated and used as a scare tactic.
Also, that had f*ck all to do with anything I just said.
I don't hate for example black so I'm not a racistfascistnazi people but I want to keep Finland safe from rapes and crimes asylum seekers do.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#47

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:30 PM

I want to keep Finland safe from rapes and crimes asylum seekers do.

You do that by integrating them into society, something Finland has historically been very good at. It's also worth noting that there are other segments of the Finnish population with massively higher than baseline levels of offending, and yet you don't seem to talk about imposing draconian restrictions to tackle offending in these groups.

I've spent quite a bit of time in Helsinki both before and since the migrant crisis started (and I'm back there again later this week, then Tampere), compared to other European capitals social integration is very good and crime rates are exceptionally low, though I suppose any kind of increase in crimes over the naturally exceptionally baseline is statistically notable.

And "work orientated" and "humanitarian" integration aren't mutually exclusive. Asylum seekers become working resident aliens, then citizens. As has happened in just about every other large scale asylum events in Europe, or globally really.
  • Tchuck, mr quick, Piggsy pls and 2 others like this

609_uu
  • 609_uu

    I sexually identify as Buzzard Attack Helicopter

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2014
  • Finland

#48

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:36 PM

I want to keep Finland safe from rapes and crimes asylum seekers do.

You do that by integrating them into society, something Finland has historically been very good at. It's also worth noting that there are other segments of the Finnish population with massively higher than baseline levels of offending, and yet you don't seem to talk about imposing draconian restrictions to tackle offending in these groups.
I've spent quite a bit of time in Helsinki both before and since the migrant crisis started (and I'm back there again later this week, then Tampere), compared to other European capitals social integration is very good and crime rates are exceptionally low, though I suppose any kind of increase in crimes over the naturally exceptionally baseline is statistically notable.
And "work orientated" and "humanitarian" integration aren't mutually exclusive. Asylum seekers become working resident aliens, then citizens. As has happened in just about every other large scale asylum events in Europe, or globally really.
Okay I was wrong.
  • mr quick, Triple Vacuum Seal and slimeball supreme like this

E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#49

Posted 24 October 2016 - 11:35 PM Edited by E.A.B., 24 October 2016 - 11:51 PM.

 

 

Also I made it clear I don't like debating


Then, in the nicest possible way, you should probably find a bit of the forum that isn't called "debate and discussion" to post in.

 

Can you not read? I already said this thread was in GC when I posted in it.


 

Most of the people on this section of the forums are uber liberals who seemingly hate people with different viewpoints from them, (mtd, Marwin, etc.) so there's unfortunately no point in making these threads. They seem like the kind of people who stick their fingers in their ears when confronted with something they don't like and just yell, "LALALA MY OPINION'S RIGHT AND YOUR'S IS WRONG". I will say that there is censorship in America and it's getting worse and worse every passing year. It'll increase tenfold when Hillary's unfortunately elected. Then again, Russia will probably nuke us soon after that so I guess censorship won't matter that much anymore.  :/

 

Don't quote me on this, but I've been on these forums for...

 

...uhh....f*ck. Over a decade? I don't know if the demographics have changed, but as far as I recall a HUGE portion of this forums were Europeans. At the very least, when I would spend a ton of time at Gen Chat I would see a ton of Europeans. This isn't ''scientific'' mind you, but I always saw GTAF as having more Europeans than normal.

 

Whatever 'normal' is.

 

And given that Americans are generally more right wing than Europeans, at least when it comes to government social programs, then you're partially right. There's a lot of people that would be called American liberals here (I put ''American'' in there don't bitch me out for using liberal in a different manner than is normally the case in Europe like last time). But I owuldn't say they'd stick their fingers in their ears like retards and make no rational arguments. I've always liked GTAF for having a lot of mature sensible people. Well, I mean when it comes to arguments some of them come up with really low tier garbage, but for the most part

 

Anyway I'm not gonna make this a f*cking quote train like I did in that election thread where I wound up having massive quotes and like 7 different conversations every time I visited it that I just got tired of and didn't bother with anymore. 

Why are you coming at me all hostile? I was siding with you.

 

 

Wha? I'm not. I didn't even realize it looked hostile, but it wasn't intended.

 

 

This "trend" is, to be frank, utter bollocks. If you look at the political affiliation of most Western countries over the last 10 years, the last two or three have actually been characterised by a lurch to the right. The assertion that political trends in the West are leaning further left is simply wrong.

 

That dude's an Australian, and I don't know sh*t about Australian politics other than flat chested women in porn apparently being banned (?), but at least in the states our politics have moved slightly more left. Obama was raised as an American leftist (albeit he didn't campaign as one) but the popularity of Bernie has moved the DNC platform further Left in an effort to appease a growing left-wing community of disparate peoples that all have grievances against da man.

 

 

Comparing a restricted and non-restricted page is the only way to check. What is and what isn't restricted seems arbitrary at least to a point, anything that as much as vaguely has a mention of or reference to alcohol, sex, drugs or violence seems to be hidden, very apparent when comparing Buzzfeed normal and Buzzfeed on restricted mode, or even searching the word "gun"- browsing on normal you get real firearms, on restricted-mode you get toy guns. Same goes for TYT, they had 20+ videos hidden in the last 24 hours alone. Other channels even seem to be completely or for 99.9% restricted like is the case with Rockstar Games, the only video available is this one. Seems as though the filter has a very broad brush that mainly (and to a degree arbitrarily so) targets the larger channels, regardless of political leaning, contrary to what PragerU claimed.

 

Point taken; but I still don't see what needs to be restricted about that Larry Elder video. At all. You may be right about soft censorship affecting all viewpoints, but what exactly is offensive about a video claiming America isn't racist is confusing to me. But then you'll tell me it's just the wide net of restricted mode, which I'll begrudgingly accept.

 

begrudgingly

 

 

Oh well. Certain viewpoints don't deserve a platform, simple as that. Specially the type of trash that comes PragerU. Not saying I'm for censorship, but in certain cases (particularly when it comes to a free public service owned by a corporation) I'm not against it, either. You could just as well argue that this forum is for censorship, since certain sh*t (racism or sexism for example) doesn't fly here, and for good reason.

 

 

Yeah, I'm sure if we outright ban certain forms of speech the controversial nature of said speech won't lead to people using it even more just to f*ck with you. I mean I certainly don't do that. It's not like stating curse words are ''bad words'' leads to young people using them even more than if they were just treated as any other word in a language.

 

I'm saying that when you say you aren't for censorship before saying you are, it has the same ridiculous effect as the ''I'm not racist, but...'' line of thought. The best way to fight off ideas you believe are bad are by having them out in the open and up for discussion rather than leaving them behind the shelves in the library for a kid to find and wonder why he never heard of this before (meaning it wasn't in the public square to be discredited)
 


Piggsy pls
  • Piggsy pls

    pls

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2013
  • United-States

#50

Posted 25 October 2016 - 04:32 AM

Yeah, I'm sure if we outright ban certain forms of speech the controversial nature of said speech won't lead to people using it even more just to f*ck with you. I mean I certainly don't do that. It's not like stating curse words are ''bad words'' leads to young people using them even more than if they were just treated as any other word in a language.
 
I'm saying that when you say you aren't for censorship before saying you are, it has the same ridiculous effect as the ''I'm not racist, but...'' line of thought. The best way to fight off ideas you believe are bad are by having them out in the open and up for discussion rather than leaving them behind the shelves in the library for a kid to find and wonder why he never heard of this before (meaning it wasn't in the public square to be discredited)

I'm not against it because Youtube, FB, etc don't have to give anyone a platform. They have just as much right to say "no, this sh*t is stupid, we don't want it on our site". I even say that when it comes to controversial viewpoints I'd agree with. These are not examples of some "left-wing" (lol) conspiracy to keep opposing views hidden.

And here's the thing, not everyone wants to have a debate with an extreme ignoramus about his viewpoints. And, said ignoramus is always free to create his own platform for his ideas, and to invite anyone kind enough to actually entertain him to a debate. But no one else is obligated to provide that platform for him, nor are they obligated to listen to what he has to say.

This is the problem in society, people think their free speech rights are being threatened, when in reality, they're the ones questioning the rights of others to tell them to take their sh*t somewhere else.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#51

Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:32 AM

That dude's an Australian, and I don't know sh*t about Australian politics

Australia has gone from Labour to Liberal/National Coalition governments- IE a lurch to the right- since 2013.


Obama was raised as an American leftist (albeit he didn't campaign as one) but the popularity of Bernie has moved the DNC platform further Left in an effort to appease a growing left-wing community of disparate peoples that all have grievances against da man.

Even by American standards, where "leftist" means "centre-right" to any other observer, I don't think Obama is particularly left wing in the context of Democrat presidents. In some areas, such as foreign policy, he's clearly to the right of Bill Clinton. And Hillary lies to the right of both of them in most policy areas.

The rising popularity of Sanders is a fair point but I don't think it's fair to call him a "leftist". He may identify as a democratic socialist but he's really a social democrat which puts him firmly in the "centrist" camp. Definately further left than pretty much any mainstream figure in American politics, but not actually left in the grand scheme of things.
  • Tchuck, mr quick, Melchior and 3 others like this

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    anti-pasto

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004
  • Australia

#52

Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:47 AM Edited by Warlord., 25 October 2016 - 08:03 AM.

 

I find this trend in the West to move towards extreme left wing ideas to be deeply disturbing.


This "trend" is, to be frank, utter bollocks. If you look at the political affiliation of most Western countries over the last 10 years, the last two or three have actually been characterised by a lurch to the right. The assertion that political trends in the West are leaning further left is simply wrong.

 

While the labels remain the same, there is an undeniable global shift in politics towards the left. For instance, modern conservatism (or those that claim themselves to be conservatives) incorporate a lot of left wing thinking their ideas.

It's not 'utter bollocks' because there is growing evidence to prove the existence of this trend and the global dissatisfaction that it is causing if you look at the current global political landscape.

 

I live in a 'Western' nation, and being someone who is originally from South Asia where people lean too much to the right for my liking, I can definitely say that in Australia atleast, there is a worrying shift of politics to the other extreme of the spectrum. Also, I don't like either of the two major parties in Australia, I find The Greens to be too left wing and a lot of the parties in the right start getting into crazy territory. So Australia doesn't really have a dominant centrist party.

 

Edit: Also, we need to make a distinction here. It's this bastard child of liberalism that is modern social liberalism that most 'conservatives' take issue with. The reason for this is that many people (and countries) that fall into this group fail to see the irony and hypocrisy in claiming to fight for social liberties, yet they go on to restrict it for other groups of people. I don't see many people taking issue with economic liberalism.

 

The gist of it is that governments need to be as firmly in the center of the political spectrum as possible. We want neutrality in government, which is why most people are in favour of the separation of Church and State, then why should governments not be discouraged from leaning to a particular side of the political spectrum? If the intention is to reduce bias and bring about neutrality with regards to policy making, a centrist government is ideal.

 

Edit 2: Also I find that law about flat chested women being banned in porn here to be f*cking hilarious. Never heard of it though.

 

Edit 3:

 

@maketotaldestroy, You're right. Extreme was not the right word. But I was trying to call attention to the general change in thinking in politics today.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#53

Posted 25 October 2016 - 09:52 AM

While the labels remain the same, there is an undeniable global shift in politics towards the left.

You can continue asserting this is true as much as you like, it doesn't actually make it so. It's about as far from "undeniable" as you can get. There is absolutely not a "global shift in politics towards the left"; there has been a shift away from the stagnant status quo in many developed nations but that's been predominantly towards right wing populist and nationalist movement. More broadly, regions typified by Socialist governments such as those in South and Latin America have seen increasing prominence of centre-right and right-wing governments. Most European nations are currently dominated by right-leaning political parties and those that aren't have growing suport for nationalist/populist ones. Nationalism is on the rise globally, and is far more closely intertwined with right wing politics than it is left.

Can you cite some evidence to support your assertions because, from my position you seem to be arguing black is white.

For instance, modern conservatism (or those that claim themselves to be conservatives) incorporate a lot of left wing thinking their ideas.

This isn't a new thing. Right wing political parties have borrowed ideas from other political ideologies for generations now. It's how they appeal to voters outside their core of wealthy, conservative, homogenous, insular core.

It's not 'utter bollocks' because there is growing evidence to prove the existence of this trend and the global dissatisfaction that it is causing if you look at the current global political landscape.

This is a non sequitur. Whilst it's true that political disenfranchisment with the current order is growing globally, the most obvious beneficiaries of this seem to be, as I've already said, right-wing populist parties and movements. Neo-fascist, Christian Identity, neo-Volkish and other violently xenophobic ethnocentric or ultranationalist movements are also growing in popularity. Political disenfranchisment drives people towards extremism of all kinds, to cast it as a left-wing phenomenon is misguided in the extreme.
 

I live in a 'Western' nation, and being someone who is originally from South Asia where people lean too much to the right for my liking, I can definitely say that in Australia atleast, there is a worrying shift of politics to the other extreme of the spectrum.

In what way? You've got a Conservative government with a protectionist, nationalist immgration policy characterised by some pretty awful treatment of asylum seekers and migrants. It doesn't surprise me that people are angry with the current administration but you shouldn't confuse revulsion at what are effectively concentration camps for immigrants as leftism.

Australia doesn't really have a dominant centrist party.

Many countries don't. It's pretty normal for the two main parties to be centre-right and centre-right. Truly centrist parties often struggle in appealing to voters because they can't differentiate themselves sufficiently.
  • Tchuck likes this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#54

Posted 26 October 2016 - 12:34 AM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 26 October 2016 - 12:50 AM.

a centrist government is ideal.


Not really though. Centrism is most effective when there is a need for shear progress while already on the right track. Otherwise, legitimacy and strength are unduly lent to the existing approach. We can’t reward bad behavior.  Though shifting left, the West's power structure currently encourages centrism on grounds of economic stability more so than identifying with a particular ideology.

 

 

Especially in the US, I can't really think of any legitimate uniquely right wing arguments that get censored out of the mainstream media...social media included.  The movement is short on ideas.  Hence the atrophying conservative movement and a massive gallop to the left by disillusioned youth.  Until conservatism can get back to it's philosophical roots and become more inclusive, it will continue to be treated as the caricature that it is.


Dave
  • Dave

    Woof

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2002
  • Singapore

#55

Posted 27 October 2016 - 05:36 AM

You can continue asserting this is true as much as you like, it doesn't actually make it so. It's about as far from "undeniable" as you can get. There is absolutely not a "global shift in politics towards the left"; there has been a shift away from the stagnant status quo in many developed nations but that's been predominantly towards right wing populist and nationalist movement. More broadly, regions typified by Socialist governments such as those in South and Latin America have seen increasing prominence of centre-right and right-wing governments. Most European nations are currently dominated by right-leaning political parties and those that aren't have growing suport for nationalist/populist ones. Nationalism is on the rise globally, and is far more closely intertwined with right wing politics than it is left.

Can you cite some evidence to support your assertions because, from my position you seem to be arguing black is white.

 

I believe what Warlord has failed to articulate is the distinction between politics and public opinion. Politics itself had been pulling left for at least a decade where main parties in most Western countries became indistinguishable from each other. They had been promoting the same ideals and standards; usually starting with collectivism and morphing into discrimination against majority groups. 'Positive' discrimination as they call it. Because choosing someone based on physical traits is somehow positive. 

 

The public became disenfranchised. It's hard to make a choice between two options you don't agree with. Though there was seldom a choice anyway. 

 

This finally led to a rise of the parties who opened up a forum for people to discuss difficult subjects that had become taboo. Politicians in certain countries have now started steering the ship starboard in order to become relevant again.

 

Regarding South America, it's quite obvious why their political landscape is changing. A decade and a half of socialism, combined with a decline in oil prices has completely slaughtered Venezuela, despite years of certain aspects of the media proclaiming that it was a shining light of the world.

 

Politics will always be cyclic, just like your workplace. People will say the status quo is not working. It gets changed. A few years later that will become the status quo that needs to change. It will get changed back. Rinse and repeat.


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#56

Posted 27 October 2016 - 10:23 AM

Every political establishment in the West has lurched right. Just compare their policy from ten years ago. The Labour parties of today are the Conservative parties of fifteen years ago.

 

You also don't seem to be aware that affirmative action is decades old, that Venezula made leaps and bounds under their moderate 'socialism' and that permanent political change has been a feature of the system since it took its current form after WWII. There's so many misconceptions in your post it's overwhelming, which is impressive. 

  • Eutyphro and Fonz like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Saint-Barthelemy

#57

Posted 27 October 2016 - 10:47 AM

The reason the public has become disenfranchised in the West is because of the decline of the developed world middle class.

screen_shot_2016-05-17_at_6.10.10_pm.png

 

Which has caused a surge of reactionary right wing movements in the developed world. It's actually completely logical that because the developed world middle class has not seen any of the benefits of globalization, and because at the same time they've seen an increase of social tensions due to rising migrant populations, they've turned to nationalism and anti globalism. It's pretty understandable.

Venezuela hasn't failed because of socialism. Socialism in fact caused a lot of economic growth and social improvements under Chavez. But after Chavez Venezuela has started to suffer from inflation due to rising food prices caused by economic warfare, and falling oil prices.


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#58

Posted 27 October 2016 - 11:36 AM

hey've seen an increase of social tensions due to rising migrant populations, they've turned to nationalism and anti globalism. It's pretty understandable.

You seem to lend some credibility to anti-migrant sentiment. I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter, and to the extent that it possibly does, it seems silly to support tightening the borders while also advocating their abolition? 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Saint-Barthelemy

#59

Posted 27 October 2016 - 12:37 PM

it seems silly to support tightening the borders while also advocating their abolition? 

I understand the moral value of the idea of abolishing borders, but in the real world it would lead to complete and utter chaos, and I don't think anyone rational could support it right now.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#60

Posted 27 October 2016 - 12:46 PM

Venezuela was in economic freefall long before the death of Chávez, but that was largely due to nepotism, cronyism and financial mismanagement. The nation simply exchanged capitalists for corrupt politicians as the economic elites.
  • mr quick likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users