In 2008, within my first year on Twitter, I encountered what I considered to be a bizarre position from someone who was ostensibly 'leftwing'. She was someone I'd met in a private online video-based community in the mid-2000s. When we joined Twitter, we all followed each other. Several of us had a discussion about the differences between blogging and journalism during which I said 'Everyone thinks they have the right to be listened to...' This was questioned by this person and I said 'Not everyone has the right to be listened to.'
To me, this was a pretty obvious statement, certainly within a leftwing/liberal group. Surely, at the very least, we all understood that religious or social conservatives do not have the right to be listened to? I mean, people can SAY what they want, but they cannot force anyone to LISTEN to them, AGREE with them, OBEY them...
Well, apparently this was an awful thing to say. I decided to expand my thoughts in a blog post. She read it, thought I was horrendous and unfollowed me... so I unfollowed her and that was that...
I thought about this blog post the other day when discussing something with Brian. Specifically, I thought about this bit:
What is a right?
1. A right is something for which you do not have to seek the permission or approval or willingness of others. It is something to which you are legally and fundamentally entitled irrespective of anyone’s private thoughts.
2. A right is universal – everyone is covered, not just certain people or one group of people or everyone except one group of people.
3. A right pertains only to yourself and does not mean you can make a claim on anyone else. You do not have the right to claim ownership of another person’s money, property, time, life etc though you have the right to earn your own money, own your own property, do what you want (without infringing on the rights of others, of course) and live your own life in the manner in which you choose (again without infringing on the rights of others).
If you were the only person living on the planet you would be able to live your life exactly how you want to no matter what sex you are are, what colour your skin is, what crazy things you believe, what crazy things you say, whether you are fully physically able or not. You would have the “right” to be able to find, gather, grow your own food, you’d be able to make a shelter, think anything you want, say anything you want etc etc
If then suddenly some other people appeared, do you gain MORE rights because there are other people around you or not? That is, because of the existence of other people, does that mean you are fundamentally entitled to “more”? Do you now have the right to their food, their home, their clothing? Do you have the right to force them to do things for you like grow your food, build your home for nothing in return? Do you have the right to tell them what they can think? Do you have the right to tell them what to say? Do you have the right to make them give you their time, energy or attention? Do they have the right to make any of those claims on you?
The answer to these questions, of course, is “No”.
A “right” is not an expectation, a desire or a wish based upon one’s own personal preferences. A “right” is a fundamental entitlement for every single human being on the planet.
14 years on and I still think it's a very sensible take... and I expect it's seen by even more people on 'the left' as being awful, horrendous and cruel.
In the early 2000s, there was a saying within the (American) liberal and atheist communities: 'Nature has a liberal bias.' We were proudly science-based. We cared about facts, figures, reality. Of course, this meant that 'liberals' found it trickier to win elections. When 'the other side' tells stories intended to play on (manipulate?) people's emotions, countering that with “but look at this graph” isn't going to cut it.
During George W's first term, cognitive linguist George Lakoff made huge waves within the liberal world. In 2004, his book 'Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives’ was released and changed the way the American left thought. I read it at the time and it blew my mind. It made total sense. He pointed out how progressives and conservatives operate within two separate worldviews. In his research he found that "these political worldviews can be understood as opposing models of an ideal family -- a strict father family and a nurturant parent family. These family models come with moral systems, which in turn provide the deep framing of all political issues." He suggested that liberals needed to stop talking in facts and figures and instead to understand that "voters vote their identities and their values far more than their self-interests." In order to win elections, Democrats needed to "articulate your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, say what you believe and say it well, strongly and with moral fervor."
All the right people listened to him and the 2008 election was run very differently by the Democrats. It was based less in facts and figures and much more in feel good stories, emotional imagery and a strong sense of progressivism as the moral choice.
In my mind, at least, Lakoff's ideas were basically about 'marketing' the progressive political worldview. The progressive worldview - the actual values and ideals - was the important thing, not the stories we told about it. Marketing at its most basic is selling a story. It's not good enough to simply say that your widget does XYZ, you need to create a whole idea, a whole lifestyle, a whole worldview around the widget that connects with potential buyers and get them to give you their money (or their vote)... That story, however, does not change the fact that your widget does XYZ. In fact, if you have really good story, your widget doesn't even need to do XYZ better than any other widget. It just needs to tell the 'right' story for your potential customers. If you are lucky, your widget will come to mean its story and people will choose it because they have internalised the story you have sold to them.
If you really believe that your XYZ widget is the best, you truly, deeply, honestly think that it is superior to the widgets that just do VWX- and who the hell would even WANT a widget that does ABC anyway??- then you will feel passionate about it. You will want to tell all your friends about it. You will want to tell everyone about it. You will want everyone to feel how happy and relaxed and fulfilled your XYZ widget makes you feel...
But...
When your story entirely shifts from 'this widget does XYZ, which is far better and more useful to me and others like me than other widgets that do VWX or ABC' into 'the happiness, relaxation and fulfilment that my XYZ widget makes me feel is far superior to any feeling any other widget can produce in anyone' into 'using XYZ widget makes me feel like I am better than other people' into 'using the XYZ widget because it provides happiness, relaxation and fulfilment means I am better than other people because only Good people feel those things' into 'only Good people use XYZ widget' into 'people who don't use XYZ widget are Bad people' and then into 'my feelings of happiness, relaxation and fulfilment are morally correct' and you have entirely forgotten about the widget and that it does XYZ, you have moved into what could be described as a 'religious position'.
And now in 2022, this is what a lot of the left have become. The switch from focusing on facts and figures and REALITY into 'selling our story' meant that a lot of people on my side have lost themselves in their story and how it makes them feel (which is 'morally superior')... They seem to think that 'how they feel' is the single most important issue on the planet. And it is... to them. But they aren't the only conscious being in the universe. Everyone's feelings are important to them. We each want to feel more Good feelings and want to feel fewer Bad feelings... But what if the thing that makes me feel Good is punching people and... you're the closest person to me? We do not have the right to feel Good because that will often require the "permission or approval or willingness of others"...
Is this all George Lakoff's fault? Ha! Not at all. I think it's more to do with the internet than any shift in political messaging... because in the early 90s Bill Clinton was actually really good at communicating leftwing ideals and that didn't cause this crazy shift into individual fantasy realms.
I think the issue is more to do with the fact that right when this big shift in messaging started to happen a lot of people just stopped leaving their own minds. What they believe to be 'interacting with the world' is just their own personal digital algorithm reflecting themselves back at them. It's an echo chamber of one - You. You have built a fantasy universe around yourself - the sole arbiter of all that is Good and Proper and Moral- that must operate entirely in the way you need it to otherwise you are incapable of coping. You have left no room for anyone else other than those who agree with and placate your feelings. Contrary to your intention, this doesn't make you feel good at all... but, for whatever reason, you refuse to do anything differently. So, you're stuck in the prison of your own mind getting more and more angry and bitter that everyone doesn't agree how morally superior you are. You live your life addicted to getting likes, followers, 'digital reach', sympathy... constantly chasing them in the hope that one day everyone in the universe will turn to you and say 'You are Right. You are Good. You are Morally Superior.' Spoiler: that's not going to happen. So then what will you do?
I'm sitting here still really keen on facts, figures and reality. That's enough for me... (Also, Apple make the best computers don’t @ me)
"Sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way while everyone around him turns 180 degrees." - Ian Leslie
According to Buddhist teachings all the happiness in the world comes from wishing others to be happy. If our mind is on others who are countless then our self centred self is forgotten we are
happy because our mind is peaceful. When I first heard this I though no bloody way.
They are horrible evil yet over time, in my case a lot of time if I can bring that mind when
facing disappointment just wish the other to be ok to be happy then a natural peace arises.
I have to admit that I have a long way to go . I lost my brown stuff the other day when I had spent
£60 quid on a taxi to a hospital only to be told they had cancelled my appointment like half an
hour before I was due to arrive.
I ended up at the bus stop chatted to a lovely lady who had bone cancer we mutually agreed
that the NHS system in Wales is deeply flawed well fucking useless.
People help each other hold out a hand facts and figures can’t quantify this
Rights do not depend on any one person's wishes, but they do depend on society as a whole. Your description of rights sounds good to me, as a US citizen born in the 20th century. If someone from another culture says, we are slaves of the Tsar and proud of being such, the list of rights might change a bit.
People (generally on the left) say health care is a right. Does that mean that the State can compel doctors and nurses to provide care?