DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Things leftists say that you hate hearing all of the time

450 posts / 0 new
Last post
Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Aug 5 2013 08:49

I like folk/bluegrass – think that makes me a closet lefty.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Aug 5 2013 09:20
commieprincess wrote:

"I'm voting for Sarah Teather because she's very good on Palestine"

Quote:
the German equivalent: "I'm voting for Jürgen Möllemann because he's very good on Palestine"

one of the main reasons why Möllemann (probably the German equivalent of George Galloway (minus the left-wing populism)) was "good on Palestine" were his strong business contacts with Saudi Arabia and Syria

'malatesta'
Offline
Joined: 29-11-11
Aug 5 2013 09:23

'Narzi scum - off our streets.' note the elongated 1st vowel. it just sound rubbish and inaccurate.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Aug 5 2013 09:26

dp

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 5 2013 09:31

Trigger warnings with descriptions of what's going to be talked about don't make sense. Example, "Trigger warning, graphic discussion concerning being burned alive in a fire". It would seem, well, if that was a trigger for someone simply reading the trigger warning would be a trigger as the trigger warning itself would bring in mental images of a person being burned alive in a fire. I just don't know about all this. I think it's going to take some major pressure to get me 100% on board. And ya, Cooked, I think memes are abundant on the left. Most coming from the more idealist elements and a lot of times people will fall all over themselves to "out left" others by amplifying these memes to absurd proportions. The Church has it's piety and we sometimes have our own strange form of moral fervor. Go against that grain in any way shape or form and you just might get excommunicated.

May we all aspire to be Christ like.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Aug 5 2013 09:51
Ally_S wrote:
One time I saw a trigger warning for...get this...cartoon violence! O_O

You mean like this?

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Aug 5 2013 10:46
Mike S. wrote:
Trigger warnings with descriptions of what's going to be talked about don't make sense. Example, "Trigger warning, graphic discussion concerning being burned alive in a fire". It would seem, well, if that was a trigger for someone simply reading the trigger warning would be a trigger as the trigger warning itself would bring in mental images of a person being burned alive in a fire. I just don't know about all this.

Maybe you've only come across trigger warnings on the periphery of where they are useful, so they seem a bit absurd. I first encountered them on message boards for people with mental health problems. Say someone was starting a thread about having trouble with self harming they'd put 'trig-SH' at the end of the thread title, and people who had self harming problems themselves and didn't want to be exposed to a lot of talk about it in case it made them want to do it more would know to avoid that thread. Same for eating disorders, suicide, things that trigger flashbacks for people with PTSD like rape, and so on. In that context it just feels normal and sensible.

But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Aug 5 2013 11:26
RedEd wrote:
But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

I think it's useful to warn people that some things might be upsetting, especially with regards to dropping in certain images. But adopting the whole "this episode contains issues that some viewers may find disturbing" approach is frankly disturbing in itself and smacks of BBC style paternalism.

Libertarian Communism may be about solidarity but that is not the same as a 'support group' in the therapy sense. It's about revolutionary ideas, class war, organisation and action. Each and everyone of these topics deserves its own trigger warning. Sure, a degree of sensitivity can go along way, but codifying this into a series of trigger warnings is potentially damaging to our movement and makes us look a bit like the GLC circa 1983.

Seriously, our enemies must be pissing themselves at our ludicrously 'nice' antics.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Aug 5 2013 12:14

I am not sure that trigger warnings are in fact the vastly threatening obstruction to the growth of the communist movement that is suggested here.

If anything I'd like to see them improved, ditching the bold caps lock exclamation marked text, in favour of a tidy recognisable graphic.

It seems to me that complaining about trigger warnings is frustration with the communist movement in general, misdirected onto issues that are not the reasons for why it is a marginal political tendency.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Aug 5 2013 12:30
Serge Forward wrote:
RedEd wrote:
But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

I think it's useful to warn people that some things might be upsetting, especially with regards to dropping in certain images. But adopting the whole "this episode contains issues that some viewers may find disturbing" approach is frankly disturbing in itself and smacks of BBC style paternalism.

Libertarian Communism may be about solidarity but that is not the same as a 'support group' in the therapy sense. It's about revolutionary ideas, class war, organisation and action. Each and everyone of these topics deserves its own trigger warning. Sure, a degree of sensitivity can go along way, but codifying this into a series of trigger warnings is potentially damaging to our movement and makes us look a bit like the GLC circa 1983.

Seriously, our enemies must be pissing themselves at our ludicrously 'nice' antics.

I didn't mean to defend trigger warnings in all of their applications, just to point out where they come from and where they are useful and to show that they are not some made up activoid nonsense but a genuine helpful tool in certain situations.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Aug 5 2013 13:57

"You shouldn't oppose unions because THE WORKING CLASS instinctively gravitates towards this form of organizing."

ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Aug 5 2013 14:55

picture says it all

ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Aug 5 2013 14:58

one of the things i hate hearing has actually been said a few times on this thread - complaining about others discussing or addressing privilege. privilege does exist and is a problem. come on, people.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2013 15:20
ultraviolet wrote:
one of the things i hate hearing has actually been said a few times on this thread - complaining about others discussing or addressing privilege. privilege does exist and is a problem. come on, people.

I understand the word privilege to mean something completely different from the way it is used on the American left today. Basically it meant having something that the majority of people didn't have. When I was young if you went to university you were privilege. That is what it meant.

I think that modern privilege theory is a completely reactionary idea whose actual function is to divide people into smaller and smaller interest groups. Class is just another point for them alongside all other oppressions. There is, however, something very different about class for communists.

What I think you get in North America with the privelege theory thing is another way for people from the sociological middle class to tell working class people to shut up and listen to them as always.

That doesn't mean that some groups don't suffer oppression. It means that I believe that privelege theory just ends up with privileged people talking down to working class people.

Devrim

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Aug 5 2013 16:22
Harrison wrote:
mismatched language for the situation, everything has to 'fight' this, or 'smash' that, but mostly the actual activities will tend toward going on a march or handing out a leaflet.

This x100000000.

Generally I think much of the explanation for the continued insignificance revolutionary movement, rather than its occasionally clumsy attempts to integrate survivors or folk with mental health issues ( roll eyes ) - which kinda sounds like the thin end of the wedge of smoking out 'feminists' etc to be attacked - is its continued insistence on practices that are totally counter-intuitive to the lived experience of the majority of people: eg demonstrations, leaflets, one day strikes, etc.

I sometimes wonder if people are reluctant to attend these sorts of events cos they are just so fucking odd and the sort of behaviours and rituals witnessed at them are (generally) unique to that particular environment.

I realise this is paradoxical with much of the activity we all do, and i haven't really found a solution to it yet, but it's something which presses on me constantly.

Theft's picture
Theft
Offline
Joined: 17-08-11
Aug 5 2013 16:43
Devrim wrote:

What I think you get in North America with the privelege theory thing is another way for people from the sociological middle class to tell working class people to shut up and listen to them as always.

That doesn't mean that some groups don't suffer oppression. It means that I believe that privelege theory just ends up with privileged people talking down to working class people.

Devrim

This.

Sadly it also seems to be becoming more popular in the UK now as well.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2013 17:25
Theft wrote:
Sadly it also seems to be becoming more popular in the UK now as well.

I think that this is probably due to the common language. It doesn't seem to me to have the same resonance in Europe or the Middle East.

Devrim

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Aug 5 2013 17:25

Devrim #45
An excellent post.

I think I was privileged though not materially – for having parents who thought ideas were important and encouraged their children to question the status quo (not the group you bad sods).

I am peeved at folk I meet who say things like, ‘Well all true socialists/communists are anarchists at heart. These measures/tactics are only until…’
Solidarity had a terrific cartoon of someone being shot and the chap blindfolding him is saying, ‘It's only an interim measure’.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2013 17:32
Auld-bod wrote:
Devrim #45
An excellent post.

I think I was privileged though not materially – for having parents who thought ideas were important and encouraged their children to question the status quo (not the group you bad sods)

Thanks for the kind words.

I suppose I could say something similar. One thing I am eternally grateful to for my parents is that we didn't grow up with religion in any way. If I was talking about it I would say I was 'lucky' though, not 'privileged'.

Devrim

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Aug 5 2013 17:50

It is funny how we use words, ‘lucky’ I seldom use, as a number of the men I’ve worked with were keen punters on the horses (though they’d say - backin’ the cuddies) and believed in ‘luck’. I’ve subconsciously equated it with ‘faith’ - an irrational belief based on wish fulfilment. wink

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Aug 5 2013 17:51
Devrim wrote:
I understand the word privilege to mean something completely different from the way it is used on the American left today. Basically it meant having something that the majority of people didn't have. When I was young if you went to university you were privilege. That is what it meant.

I think that modern privilege theory is a completely reactionary idea whose actual function is to divide people into smaller and smaller interest groups. Class is just another point for them alongside all other oppressions. There is, however, something very different about class for communists.

What I think you get in North America with the privelege theory thing is another way for people from the sociological middle class to tell working class people to shut up and listen to them as always.

That doesn't mean that some groups don't suffer oppression. It means that I believe that privelege theory just ends up with privileged people talking down to working class people.

Devrim

Nailed it. And you said it far better than my usual bull-in-a-china-shoppy way.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 5 2013 18:19

Anything about how we have to 'reach out' to the working class. Perpetual recruitment mentality in general instead of, at least in my view, the more pressing need of workers to vastly improve the bonds and trust between each other.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 5 2013 19:03

I struggle with the term privilege being used in the sense discussed here.
Why would having something that EVERYONE has a natural right to, namely, good food, good housing and other material needs and respect for their race, gender etc, be considered a privilege?

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Aug 5 2013 19:19
Webby wrote:
I struggle with the term privilege being used in the sense discussed here.
Why would having something that EVERYONE has a natural right to, namely, good food, good housing and other material needs and respect for their race, gender etc, be considered a privilege?

Because some other people do without those things?

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 5 2013 19:19
Ally_S wrote:
Trigger warnings aren't there to prevent anyone from being hurt or offended. They're just that: warnings. Warnings for those people who might have a strong negative psychological reaction to the content that follows. While certainly trigger warnings can be overused and sometimes used in ways that don't make any sense, usually people only use them to be courteous and respectful of others who suffer from triggers. If you don't suffer from any psychological triggers, then the warnings don't apply to you. I mean, I've never been raped, but if I was going to link an article to a friend who happens to suffer from trauma triggers as a result of being raped, I'd make a trigger warning in a heartbeat.

Isn't the avoiding of "triggers" and hence resolution how one develops ptsd? I have ptsd and trigger warnings piss me off to no end. In fact just seeing them themselves gives me "triggers" when the subject otherwise might not. The whole thing is patronizing as hell too and is a subculture, if not cultish. More to the point:

RedEd wrote:

Maybe you've only come across trigger warnings on the periphery of where they are useful, so they seem a bit absurd. I first encountered them on message boards for people with mental health problems. Say someone was starting a thread about having trouble with self harming they'd put 'trig-SH' at the end of the thread title, and people who had self harming problems themselves and didn't want to be exposed to a lot of talk about it in case it made them want to do it more would know to avoid that thread. Same for eating disorders, suicide, things that trigger flashbacks for people with PTSD like rape, and so on. In that context it just feels normal and sensible.

Its not sensible, it is utter batshit. Its also typical of the 'self-help' 'industry' in the Anglo countries. Its like the person you find at any Narcotics Anonymous meeting who hasn't done drugs in literally 20+ years yet still attends meetings regularly because they can't move on with their lives. Wikipedia puts it best when it summarizes Alcoholics Anonymous as "Counter-Enlightenment." There is an infusion of the worst of Protestant philosophy in here that says people can't change their lot and can only find fulfillment if they accept it and better themselves within it (which is still better then it's flip side which says individual willpower will give you everything). And wouldn't the whole point of visiting a message board for mental health problems be to read about and discuss the similar experiences of others with the same problem? Why else would you go on there?

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 5 2013 19:51
RedEd wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
Trigger warnings with descriptions of what's going to be talked about don't make sense. Example, "Trigger warning, graphic discussion concerning being burned alive in a fire". It would seem, well, if that was a trigger for someone simply reading the trigger warning would be a trigger as the trigger warning itself would bring in mental images of a person being burned alive in a fire. I just don't know about all this.

Maybe you've only come across trigger warnings on the periphery of where they are useful, so they seem a bit absurd. I first encountered them on message boards for people with mental health problems. Say someone was starting a thread about having trouble with self harming they'd put 'trig-SH' at the end of the thread title, and people who had self harming problems themselves and didn't want to be exposed to a lot of talk about it in case it made them want to do it more would know to avoid that thread. Same for eating disorders, suicide, things that trigger flashbacks for people with PTSD like rape, and so on. In that context it just feels normal and sensible.

But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

It started on feminist websites when discussion of rape would take place which is understandable but it has morphed into something different which for me signifies a certain mentality on the left which would actually run the opposite direction from any sort of future hypothetical conflict to end capitalism. I don't think we should all be tough guy patriarchal males but taking on the stereotypical erroneous female role ie sensitive, fragile, emotional, needy etc isn't any better. There are cases where a person should be warned about content but as with other aspects of our more idealist theories there's no real lines drawn and anything a person says becomes "real"- then we see trigger warnings on articles about spiders, slimy stuff, fear of holes in the ground and the color purple.

teh
Offline
Joined: 15-06-09
Aug 5 2013 19:25
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Webby wrote:
I struggle with the term privilege being used in the sense discussed here.
Why would having something that EVERYONE has a natural right to, namely, good food, good housing and other material needs and respect for their race, gender etc, be considered a privilege?

Because some other people do without those things?

I think they mean privilege theory says people need to get rid of their privileges or that having these "rights" is shameful. Like when labor laws are deregulated those with the privilege of having full time jobs that they can't be fired from need to give that up for those who are chronically unemployed.

Ally_S's picture
Ally_S
Offline
Joined: 14-07-13
Aug 5 2013 19:30
teh wrote:
Ally_S wrote:
Trigger warnings aren't there to prevent anyone from being hurt or offended. They're just that: warnings. Warnings for those people who might have a strong negative psychological reaction to the content that follows. While certainly trigger warnings can be overused and sometimes used in ways that don't make any sense, usually people only use them to be courteous and respectful of others who suffer from triggers. If you don't suffer from any psychological triggers, then the warnings don't apply to you. I mean, I've never been raped, but if I was going to link an article to a friend who happens to suffer from trauma triggers as a result of being raped, I'd make a trigger warning in a heartbeat.

Isn't the avoiding of "triggers" and hence resolution how one develops ptsd? I have ptsd and trigger warnings piss me off to no end. In fact just seeing them themselves gives me "triggers" when the subject otherwise might not. The whole thing is patronizing as hell too and is a subculture, if not cultish.

You're right that trigger warnings aren't good for everyone. But quite a few people with PTSD do appreciate these warnings. Perhaps it's better for everyone to say "content note" instead of "trigger warning," though, since the latter sounds alarmist at times and might actually be upsetting for some people who suffer from PTSD.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 5 2013 19:39
Quote:
Because some other people do without those things?

Nah, that doesn't cut it for me - if you kick me in the nuts but don't kick my brother does that make him privileged? Course not.
Maybe I'm being pedantic but I don't think appropriating words such as this is a good idea. I'm very glad to get three good meals a day and live in a half decent house but that shouldn't be considered a privilege - to me it's the bare minimum we should all expect.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 5 2013 19:56
Quote:
Its also typical of the 'self-help' 'industry' in the Anglo countries. Its like the person you find at any Narcotics Anonymous meeting who hasn't done drugs in literally 20+ years yet still attends meetings regularly because they can't move on with their lives.

Woah there! That's a bit one dimensional if you don't mind me saying. I left NA after 11 years as I felt I could not move on with my life in that environment but if people find a safe place and a new way to live and don't want to move on then good on 'em. Anyway, it's well documented that there are dangers associated with leaving even after decades clean. Most importantly though, if everyone leaves once they've been drug free for a while who's going to help the next fucked up addict when they walk through the door?
I recently did a run of meetings after 5 years away but found there was very little there that I wanted and due to my lack of enthusiasm there was little I had to offer but NA is just too easy to judge from the outside and it's a bit unfair.
Now, if you want to get stuck in to the devious, self serving fuckers at the World Service(snort!) office in Van Nuys, Ca, be my guest!