I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
But you used to have the right to protest against things you disagree with.
Okay. But I thought you were saying that the state should prohibit people from doing things which fail to conform to social norms. But you're simply just saying that advocates of conformity should have the right to protest against the non-conformists?
Harmfulness is the issue here. People taking offense isn't the same as being harmed. Harm is inflicted. Offense is... acquired?
Passive aggression is a thing, but I'd agree. If you offend someone and they take offense...unless they're suing you for damages...I don't see any harm in someone taking offense at your actions.
This does get into social contract theory, I think, if you dig into it enough. But I think I might be getting ahead of myself.
Harmfulness is the issue here. People taking offense isn't the same as being harmed. Harm is inflicted. Offense is... acquired?
Passive aggression is a thing, but I'd agree. If you offend someone and they take offense...unless they're suing you for damages...I don't see any harm in someone taking offense at your actions.
This does get into social contract theory, I think, if you dig into it enough. But I think I might be getting ahead of myself.
If it's aggressive in any way, even passive, I'd say it was harmful -- harm causing -- an infliction. My sense is that someone becoming offended isn't because I've sought to offended them as much as it is they've taken offense at my words or actions which may have simply been an expression of something different or contrary to something they've done or said.
Harmfulness is the issue here. People taking offense isn't the same as being harmed. Harm is inflicted. Offense is... acquired?
Passive aggression is a thing, but I'd agree. If you offend someone and they take offense...unless they're suing you for damages...I don't see any harm in someone taking offense at your actions.
This does get into social contract theory, I think, if you dig into it enough. But I think I might be getting ahead of myself.
If it's aggressive in any way, even passive, I'd say it was harmful -- harm causing -- an infliction. My sense is that someone becoming offended isn't because I've sought to offended them as much as it is they've taken offense at my words or actions which may have simply been an expression of something different or contrary to something they've done or said.
And that situation, the "'ope, excuse me" of the midwestern USA, is where a lot of social contract comes in. "I didn't mean to offend you!" followed by "Well, you did!" can get very inflammatory in some situations. Negotiating the difference between accident, intent, injury, and passive aggression can get super prickly in some specific cases I'm thinking of.
For instance, "I didn't realize that doing this would come across as rude!" is not uncommon in some American intersections.
None of this needs legislation, but it's socially irritating.
Harmfulness is the issue here. People taking offense isn't the same as being harmed. Harm is inflicted. Offense is... acquired?
Etymologically offense comes from a root meaning attack. I think it's useful to distinguish between things that are actually in some sense intended as offence, such as insults and blasphemy and satire and criticism; and thinks that cause outrage, such as well wearing non-standard clothes for one's gender, which aren't comments on the outraged people in any way.
Of course, just because something is genuinely offensive doesn't mean it's morally wrong - satire, for example; and even if one judges that something has overstepped some ethical limit it would usually still be wrong to ban it legally.
Tldr; there's taking offence, taking offence, and taking offence, and wearing gender-nonstandard clothes is definitely at the unjustified end.
And there's deliberately dehumanising people in ways that increasingly endanger them and other them and pave the way for human rights violations. Unendangered privileged people persecuting marginalised groups like to frame that stuff as harmless freedom of speech which people take needless oversensitive offence to but it very much isn't.
Power and privilege need very much to be borne in mind when people talk about taking offence.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
Thing is, social norms are one of the key things driving social cohesion - they are the primary way that a society exists in the first place. If you have two different sets of social norms side by side within the same country then you basically have two different societies side by side within that country. That may work for a while, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that it eventually leads to division and conflict.
And there's deliberately dehumanising people in ways that increasingly endanger them and other them and pave the way for human rights violations. Unendangered privileged people persecuting marginalised groups like to frame that stuff as harmless freedom of speech which people take needless oversensitive offence to but it very much isn't.
Power and privilege need very much to be borne in mind when people talk about taking offence.
I agree. I see this happening in Australia and other countries.
The question becomes what level/type of social norms are "required" for social cohesion? How much cohesion of a social variety is desirable, Marvin the Martian?
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
Thing is, social norms are one of the key things driving social cohesion - they are the primary way that a society exists in the first place. If you have two different sets of social norms side by side within the same country then you basically have two different societies side by side within that country.
Well, if the whole of society is atomised, regardless of 'social norms' you wouldn't have a society, so I don't think the two things are directly related in the way suggested above.
So then it seems to come down to shared institutions - which is probably one reason why the far right ends up glomming on to religion, regardless of the contradictions created, because it's very difficult to create any notion of society merely around an aesthetic (either in the positive or negative sense)
And that situation, the "'ope, excuse me" of the midwestern USA, is where a lot of social contract comes in. "I didn't mean to offend you!" followed by "Well, you did!" can get very inflammatory in some situations. Negotiating the difference between accident, intent, injury, and passive aggression can get super prickly in some specific cases I'm thinking of.
For instance, "I didn't realize that doing this would come across as rude!" is not uncommon in some American intersections.
None of this needs legislation, but it's socially irritating.
What I'm trying to get at is an idea that offense is quite or even most often inferred -- people take it. The offended party is the creative/active party.
Thing is, social norms are one of the key things driving social cohesion - they are the primary way that a society exists in the first place. If you have two different sets of social norms side by side within the same country then you basically have two different societies side by side within that country. That may work for a while, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that it eventually leads to division and conflict.
Well, I'm of the opinion that you're mistaken. So, now we have a very clear division, and therefore we have a conflict.
Does this mean we have to be afraid of each other and cannot coexist peaceably?
What I'm trying to get at is an idea that offense is quite or even most often inferred -- people take it. The offended party is the creative/active party.
Yeah, I think I see that. And when it happens, I'd call that passive aggression. "I'm offended that you're not following my social norms!"
I really like @Dafyd 's take, personally. And I think some of this, per @Marvin the Martian 's expressed anxiety, has to do with the commons. I can walk in public wearing a kilt, and it's my business. Someone else can walk around in public wearing a niqab, and that's their business. My body is my private space, their body is their private space, we both share a common public space, no conflict.
The mischief begins when one or another private person says they're being invaded. How close do you have to be? Am I culturally assaulted if a woman is walking around in clothing that doesn't suit my cultural norms? Am I culturally assaulted if my child is exposed to *gasp!* the theory of evolution as if it were fact when I told them that creationism is God's own Truth?
The social contract is a thing and, logically, I can see why these are political arguments and conflict is inevitable. And some people get very twitchy about that because they feel like they've been losing for a long time.
Children are a big sore spot, I think. This is why in the USA, public education is a massive battle ground, to the extent that I think a lot of conservatives are trying to just tear the whole thing apart from the roots. In fact, I think it's an interesting debate whether the American right is trying to police schools to turn them into propaganda mills or if simply destroying them is the point.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
Thing is, social norms are one of the key things driving social cohesion - they are the primary way that a society exists in the first place. If you have two different sets of social norms side by side within the same country then you basically have two different societies side by side within that country. That may work for a while, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that it eventually leads to division and conflict.
I am going to challenge this statement.
During the Vietnam war, there were more than one social norm coming into play in the US. You had one social norm exemplified in the Greatest Generation: that the government could do no wrong; the military incursion had to be fully supported; keep the communists in check. On the other hand, you had the social norm of the hippie generation: trust no one over 30; get the military out of Viet Nam; other countries can do their own thing.
Then too there was the social norm of keeping the black folk in their place vs the growing standard equal rights for everyone.
Just two examples. There was a lot of turmoil on all sides. Eventually, though, a different society evolved out of that mess.
When you think about it, every generation presents a new challenge in society. because each one grows up in a different world—economically, technologically, culturally, and spiritually. The result is a recurring pattern: society must continually renegotiate what it means to live together, pass on wisdom, and adapt to change.
I am reminded of Fiddler on the Roof Tevye believed in centuries old traditions for social coherence; yet each daughter challenges that tradition in their own ways
Tzeitel chooses love over an arranged marriage.
This is change within the community’s values.
Tevye bends the rules but keeps the framework.
Hodel chooses a revolutionary idealist (Perchik) and leaves for Siberia.
This is change that stretches the community’s boundaries.
Tevye strains to accept it because it still aligns with Jewish identity and moral purpose.
Chava marries outside the faith.
This is change that breaks the inherited framework entirely.
Tevye cannot reconcile this with his deepest commitments.
Tevye’s internal monologues show the heart of generational conflict:
He wants to honor tradition.
He wants to love his daughters.
He wants to survive in a changing world.
His repeated line—“On the other hand…”—captures the universal struggle of older generations trying to adapt without losing themselves.
The musical endures because it captures a pattern every society faces:
Tradition gives identity, but can become rigid.
Change brings freedom, but can fracture community.
Generations negotiate the boundary between the two.
The fiddler—balancing precariously while playing a beautiful tune—is the symbol of every generation trying to hold onto meaning while navigating change.
In the end, as Tevye's world collapses, he reconciles with Chava and her spouse because the story forces him to confront a truth deeper than the rules he has lived by: love and belonging endure even when tradition breaks. His reconciliation is not a reversal of his convictions but a recognition of their shared humanity in the face of exile and suffering.
What Fiddler on the Roof shows—more clearly than any abstract argument—is that social cohesion is not created by uniformity of norms but by the strength of relationships, empathy, and shared humanity. If cohesion requires one set of norms, then pluralism is impossible. But if cohesion requires commitment to each other despite differing norms, then pluralism becomes sustainable
@Gramps49 I think that paints a rather unfairly conservative picture of the Greatest Generation - a lot of the ruptures in the 60s had begun with them in the 40s, with them growing up in the shadow of WW1 and the Depression and coming of age with the New Deal. They were less conservative than the Silent Generation.
@chrisstiles and even with the far right and religion, it's still very much about (a certain type of) religion as aesthetic - it's not about religion as a third space. It's never about volunteering at the church food bank for eg.
@Gramps49 I think that paints a rather unfairly conservative picture of the Greatest Generation - a lot of the ruptures in the 60s had begun with them in the 40s, with them growing up in the shadow of WW1 and the Depression and coming of age with the New Deal. They were less conservative than the Silent Generation.
@chrisstiles and even with the far right and religion, it's still very much about (a certain type of) religion as aesthetic - it's not about religion as a third space. It's never about volunteering at the church food bank for eg.
I would not argue the Greatest Generation was different than the Silent Generation. Yes, the Greatest Generation was less conservative than the previous one, largely due to urbanization and industrialization, but they were still conservative. Look at the white flight from the inner city (which is now being reversed by GenX, Z, and Alpha). Religion had modern golden era in the 50s. It has been downhill since, though, again, the Zs seem to be taking it up again more. In the US, at least, there was the attitude: My Country, right or wrong. The boomers countered "my country right or wrong, if right to keep it right; if wrong, to right it."
Actually, the Greatest Generation came of age during the 30s. The babies born from 40-45 were kind of like gap babies.
And even with the far right and religion, it's still very much about (a certain type of) religion as aesthetic - it's not about religion as a third space. It's never about volunteering at the church food bank for eg.
Right, it's equal parts the lowest effort possible and an inability to get away from the largely voluntaristic and parasocial aspects that they claim to despise.
[As a side note; as a few people have pointed out, the majority of those who were most prominent in the ruptures of the 60s were not Boomers - the SDS, the Black Panthers, the anti war movement, the Civil Rights movement etc. were all started by older - often much older - people].
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
The logic here would seem to be that preventing someone from enforcing social norms is just as illiberal as enforcing those social norms. And the harm done by forcing someone into a hole where they don't fit is no greater than the harm done by refusing to go into the hole where they don't fit.
So there are radical Islamist militants who want to impose a conservative theocratic state on the world. And there are many many liberals ofball religions or none or even authoritarian members of other religions who do not want to live under a theocratic state.
Now under your logic the people who do not want to live in a theocratic state are harming the militants by not confirming to the laws of such a state, and if you argue against such a state you are being just as intolerant as the advocates of a theocratic state.
Likewise, according to your logic China is authoritarian and repressive for repressing dissidents, and the West is equally authoritarian and repressive for interfering with China repressing critics of the Chinese government in the West.
I doubt you actually accept the logic in those cases, and therefore I think you're just spinning an argument.
You've changed the goalposts there with examples that do not accord with the original example so my words there do not apply.
In your examples, absolutely there should be resistance.
But, as I have said previously, the issue is the left espouses tolerance, until it does not accord with their values. Then they become as intolerant as those they purport to be saying are intolerant.
You're allowed. But I'm allowed to say I think you're wrong. But the online abuse in the case in the OP went well beyond "saying something".
Then they were wrong.
Jesus is handy here. Loving your enemies does not mean agreeing with them, but responding in love which means speaking in a way that is wanting their best interests at heart.
(tho to be fair to the biblical tradition, he was often quite harsh with his enemies.)
I think if you consider people your enemies simply because they have different preferences and lifestyle to you, then you've got a problem. And that's the issue I was getting at in the OP; forgetting the incident in question and looking at the wider issue, it's about whether, when you encounter people very different to you, your response is "you should be more like me".
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
That, sir, is objectively false.
Not at all. The left has gone too far left.
Under the Biden administration there was government intervention on FB to only allow views they agreed with. Cancel culture is rife (who needs evidence when there is association?). Freedom of speech was curtailed.
Elon Musk backed Trump in the last election precisely for these values. To prevent government censorship, freedom of speech and cancel culture. That's why he bought Twitter.
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
That, sir, is objectively false.
Not at all. The left has gone too far left.
Under the Biden administration there was government intervention on FB to only allow views they agreed with. Cancel culture is rife (who needs evidence when there is association?). Freedom of speech was curtailed.
Elon Musk backed Trump in the last election precisely for these values. To prevent government censorship, freedom of speech and cancel culture. That's why he bought Twitter.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
I do agree the left have to accept their social norms are not universal.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
But you used to have the right to protest against things you disagree with.
Okay. But I thought you were saying that the state should prohibit people from doing things which fail to conform to social norms. But you're simply just saying that advocates of conformity should have the right to protest against the non-conformists?
Not at all on your first point. The left has recently become too far left so they are legislating agains things that fail to conform to their social norms. That's not ok.
As for the second point absolutely. But the non conformists also have the right to protest against the conformists.
That's what liberal democracy is all about and we need to protect that.
The logic here would seem to be that preventing someone from enforcing social norms is just as illiberal as enforcing those social norms. And the harm done by forcing someone into a hole where they don't fit is no greater than the harm done by refusing to go into the hole where they don't fit.
Now under your logic the people who do not want to live in a theocratic state are harming the militants by not confirming to the laws of such a state, and if you argue against such a state you are being just as intolerant as the advocates of a theocratic state.
I doubt you actually accept the logic in those cases, and therefore I think you're just spinning an argument.
You've changed the goalposts there with examples that do not accord with the original example so my words there do not apply.
That's the thing about logic: it applies to all the goalposts. If the argument doesn't work after you change the goalposts it means that the argument didn't work with the original goalposts either.
Saying "it doesn't accord" is facile. Anyone can say that whether it's true or not. It's not going to persuade anyone who thinks it does.
But, as I have said previously, the issue is the left espouses tolerance, until it does not accord with their values. Then they become as intolerant as those they purport to be saying are intolerant.
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
That, sir, is objectively false.
Not at all. The left has gone too far left.
Under the Biden administration there was government intervention on FB to only allow views they agreed with. Cancel culture is rife (who needs evidence when there is association?). Freedom of speech was curtailed.
Elon Musk backed Trump in the last election precisely for these values. To prevent government censorship, freedom of speech and cancel culture. That's why he bought Twitter.
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
That, sir, is objectively false.
Not at all. The left has gone too far left.
Under the Biden administration there was government intervention on FB to only allow views they agreed with. Cancel culture is rife (who needs evidence when there is association?). Freedom of speech was curtailed.
Elon Musk backed Trump in the last election precisely for these values. To prevent government censorship, freedom of speech and cancel culture. That's why he bought Twitter.
I think that's how Trump won.
Biden isn't "the left", and governments of all stripes try to control the flow of information in emergencies like, say, a global pandemic.
Why is Musk's direct promotion of far right views ok simply because he does it with money but Biden's trying to limit misinformation via persuading other tech bros not?
It's worth pointing out that there's a significant difference between "views you disagree with" and "misinformation". There is a tendency in some circles to conflate them.
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
That, sir, is objectively false.
Not at all. The left has gone too far left.
Under the Biden administration there was government intervention on FB to only allow views they agreed with. Cancel culture is rife (who needs evidence when there is association?). Freedom of speech was curtailed.
Elon Musk backed Trump in the last election precisely for these values. To prevent government censorship, freedom of speech and cancel culture. That's why he bought Twitter.
The term “cancel culture” is used most frequently by conservative politicians, right‑leaning media, and public figures who feel targeted by social backlash. These groups frame it as censorship driven by progressive social norms. Some centrist or classical‑liberal writers also use the term to argue that public discourse has become overly punitive. In contrast, marginalized groups and progressive activists rarely use the phrase, viewing social consequences as accountability rather than suppression. Overall, the term is most common among groups who perceive a loss of cultural authority or feel their traditional viewpoints are being challenged.
I find the Trump administration very actively involved in the cancel culture when they take on higher education institutions for presenting a liberal bias; when they eliminate Diversity, Equality and Inclusion programs in National Displays--like taking down the information on slave auctions in Philadelphia; when they begin removing decorated servicewomen from combat roles in the military.
Traditional viewpoints have to be challenged. Just last night on NPR the author, Michael Harriot, was interviewed on a segment they called Settled In. Harriot argues if it was not for the contributions of slave labor, the early European settlers would not have been able to survive in the New World. Now, as a kid I hardly ever heard anything about slave labor contributions in the early colonization of America. Who was cancelling whom then? No, we need these voices heard. It makes for a fuller tapestry of who we really are.
FWIW and I may get some stick for this, but I think there are threats to civil liberties from both right and left and vigilance is required.
That doesn't mean signing up for Musk's toxic tweets nor accepting the shit on the inappropriately named 'Truth Social'.
Still less does it mean banning the teaching of evolution in 'Bible-belt' US States or removing particular books from public libraries or complaining about the number of people of colour in TV adverts - all of which seem to be emanating from the populist right as we speak.
It's one thing for @WhimsicalChristian to point the finger at 'the left' without removing the dirty great big plank from the eyes of those closer to his end of the political spectrum.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
I do agree the left have to accept their social norms are not universal.
"The left" in general does accept this.
If you want to wear clothing that conceals various parts of your body, or your hair, the response of "the left" is "you can do that". Do you want to refrain from shopping or having fun on Sundays, and keep the day for prayer, Bible study, and quiet family time? You can do that. Do you want to have a "traditional" marriage with one man, one woman, and have "traditional" gender roles within your marriage? You can do that.
Don't like gay marriage? That's OK: nobody is making you have one. Think alcohol is sinful? That's OK: nobody will make you drink it.
You just don't get to impose your social norms on other people.
So where are "the left" in power and able to threaten civil liberties, and how are they doing so? This "both sides" business is tiresome.
Seconded. I live in the USA and I'm not seeing any censorship from the left, except the privilege I exercise when I personally peel "pro-ICE" stickers off of signposts as I walk down the street.
I understand graffiti is subject to a sort of "law of the jungle."
Leaning Cniht wrote: I think in conventional use, the fact that I am not permitted to punch you in the face is a little stronger than what we call a "social norm".
To which Caissa replies: In some societies, under some circumstances, that would be an acceptable social norm.
Could you give some examples? I can't think of anywhere where the left is in power and able to do this within the UK/Anglosphere.
You don't have to be 'in power' to do this sort of thing.
There can be pressures within groups, institutions and political parties whatever their stripe.
You will notice that the egregious instances I cited, such as efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in some US States and removing particular books from libraries or whingeing about the presence of black people in TV ads come from the right not the left.
That doesn't mean that the left isn't capable of exerting pressures to curb freedom of speech or expression in various situations.
Heck, I was roundly criticised on these boards for citing instances of Corbynistas destroying an otherwise viable local Labour Party group from the inside.
I was accused of favouring 'Blairites' or having a bias against the left and all sorts.
I'm unrepentant.
People I know and respect were very hurt by it and I know capable former Labour activists who are no longer involved in politics at all as a result.
In that instance pegs were forced out of holes because they didn't fit the ideology of a particular group who muscled in and gave them a hard time.
I'm sure the same has happened in reverse with left-wing Labour activists and supporters ousted or made unwelcome by centrists or 'Blue Labour' types.
I know some people here find the 'both' thing annoying but life doesn't neatly boil down into goodies and baddies like old Hollywood Westerns.
Populism is bad from whichever direction it comes.
Any group, whether it be political, religious, sporty, artistic or whatever else can exert a certain amount of pressure to conform.
I'm hearing of Orthodox parishes in the US where everyone either votes Republican or Democrat. Anyone whose politics differs from the prevailing hegemony feels excluded and ends up going somewhere else.
I don't believe that's healthy.
None of us are immune to this.
Heck, if anyone came to one of the open-mic poetry events I sometimes attend and came out with a mildly right-wing poem they wouldn't be welcome at all. There's a tacit assumption that everyone there is going to be on the left of the political spectrum.
Ok, that's not heavy-duty pressure but it is a form of conformity.
We don’t have many fundamentalists on these boards any more. Not because we have driven them away with pitchforks or 'cancelled' them but because they don't fit in for very long.
If there is a preponderance of any particular viewpoint or stance then anyone with a different view is going to feel out of place.
Heck, I was roundly criticised on these boards for citing instances of Corbynistas destroying an otherwise viable local Labour Party group from the inside.
Without actually having details it's hard to judge. One would assume that if a pattern is repeated and prevalent it would show up in national reporting, and there's a lacuna here -- doubly so given how keen the press was to report problems on the left from 2015 onwards.
@Gamma Gamaliel the issue for me is that you're talking about a lot of dramatically different levels of power as if they're equivalent. You do actually have to be in power in order to threaten civil liberties, which is what you referred to rather than merely social norms. Not fitting in at a local poetry open-mic is not having your civil liberties threatened, and imo it does a disservice to the genuine threat to civil liberties to indulge in both-sidesism.
I think that situations as Gamaliel describes are also about a few different things happening at once. Firstly that people will naturally form social groups with like-minded people - I think that's just normal human behaviour and not actually necessarily a pressure to conform. Sometimes people just don't get on and it's not necessarily intentional or malicious.
I think local politics regardless of party or region generally attracts particular personality types, and they can be prone to clashing with each other. I think that's due to the kinds of people who get involved in local politics more than anything else.
Additionally, while obviously there are exceptions, the arts in general lean leftwards simply because art has a tendency to be inspired by social issues. The process of making art is also often in conflict with late-stage capitalism.
My point is that happens at a local or micro level where there are pressures, however mild, to conform, can grow at a macro or societal level or at regional, national and international levels.
At the extremes of course we get examples like North Korea or Albania under Enver Hoxha.
Or vicious fascist regimes.
On the particular Labour Party branch issue, I've said on these boards before that I was impressed by the response and procedures the Party had in place when things became too toxic.
But I still feel that there's an unhealthy internal culture within Labour which has always put me off even when I was a Labour voter.
It's not 'both-sides-ism' to acknowledge faults and issues on our own particular side of things where necessary.
I really don't understand why some if you seem so 'touchy' on this issue.
The most egregious examples I gave all came from the right and were aimed at @WhimsicalChristian who appears to overlook these things to a certain extent when criticising 'the left.'
I make the not unreasonable comment that vigilance is also required on the left and liberal side of things and people react as if I'm saying that there are cheese-eating jelly monsters on the far side of the moon.
You claimed a threat to "civil liberties" when what you actually mean is "right wing entryists were briefly no longer made welcome in a handful of CLPs and the party machinery protected them anyway". You equated apples with split pins and are wondering why you're getting pushback. Seriously?
Comments
Okay. But I thought you were saying that the state should prohibit people from doing things which fail to conform to social norms. But you're simply just saying that advocates of conformity should have the right to protest against the non-conformists?
Passive aggression is a thing, but I'd agree. If you offend someone and they take offense...unless they're suing you for damages...I don't see any harm in someone taking offense at your actions.
This does get into social contract theory, I think, if you dig into it enough. But I think I might be getting ahead of myself.
If it's aggressive in any way, even passive, I'd say it was harmful -- harm causing -- an infliction. My sense is that someone becoming offended isn't because I've sought to offended them as much as it is they've taken offense at my words or actions which may have simply been an expression of something different or contrary to something they've done or said.
And that situation, the "'ope, excuse me" of the midwestern USA, is where a lot of social contract comes in. "I didn't mean to offend you!" followed by "Well, you did!" can get very inflammatory in some situations. Negotiating the difference between accident, intent, injury, and passive aggression can get super prickly in some specific cases I'm thinking of.
For instance, "I didn't realize that doing this would come across as rude!" is not uncommon in some American intersections.
None of this needs legislation, but it's socially irritating.
Of course, just because something is genuinely offensive doesn't mean it's morally wrong - satire, for example; and even if one judges that something has overstepped some ethical limit it would usually still be wrong to ban it legally.
Tldr; there's taking offence, taking offence, and taking offence, and wearing gender-nonstandard clothes is definitely at the unjustified end.
Power and privilege need very much to be borne in mind when people talk about taking offence.
Thing is, social norms are one of the key things driving social cohesion - they are the primary way that a society exists in the first place. If you have two different sets of social norms side by side within the same country then you basically have two different societies side by side within that country. That may work for a while, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that it eventually leads to division and conflict.
I agree. I see this happening in Australia and other countries.
Well, if the whole of society is atomised, regardless of 'social norms' you wouldn't have a society, so I don't think the two things are directly related in the way suggested above.
So then it seems to come down to shared institutions - which is probably one reason why the far right ends up glomming on to religion, regardless of the contradictions created, because it's very difficult to create any notion of society merely around an aesthetic (either in the positive or negative sense)
What I'm trying to get at is an idea that offense is quite or even most often inferred -- people take it. The offended party is the creative/active party.
My suspicion is that a lot, if not most, is unjustified.
Well, I'm of the opinion that you're mistaken. So, now we have a very clear division, and therefore we have a conflict.
Does this mean we have to be afraid of each other and cannot coexist peaceably?
Honestly, I think you're ok.
I really like @Dafyd 's take, personally. And I think some of this, per @Marvin the Martian 's expressed anxiety, has to do with the commons. I can walk in public wearing a kilt, and it's my business. Someone else can walk around in public wearing a niqab, and that's their business. My body is my private space, their body is their private space, we both share a common public space, no conflict.
The mischief begins when one or another private person says they're being invaded. How close do you have to be? Am I culturally assaulted if a woman is walking around in clothing that doesn't suit my cultural norms? Am I culturally assaulted if my child is exposed to *gasp!* the theory of evolution as if it were fact when I told them that creationism is God's own Truth?
The social contract is a thing and, logically, I can see why these are political arguments and conflict is inevitable. And some people get very twitchy about that because they feel like they've been losing for a long time.
Children are a big sore spot, I think. This is why in the USA, public education is a massive battle ground, to the extent that I think a lot of conservatives are trying to just tear the whole thing apart from the roots. In fact, I think it's an interesting debate whether the American right is trying to police schools to turn them into propaganda mills or if simply destroying them is the point.
I am going to challenge this statement.
During the Vietnam war, there were more than one social norm coming into play in the US. You had one social norm exemplified in the Greatest Generation: that the government could do no wrong; the military incursion had to be fully supported; keep the communists in check. On the other hand, you had the social norm of the hippie generation: trust no one over 30; get the military out of Viet Nam; other countries can do their own thing.
Then too there was the social norm of keeping the black folk in their place vs the growing standard equal rights for everyone.
Just two examples. There was a lot of turmoil on all sides. Eventually, though, a different society evolved out of that mess.
When you think about it, every generation presents a new challenge in society. because each one grows up in a different world—economically, technologically, culturally, and spiritually. The result is a recurring pattern: society must continually renegotiate what it means to live together, pass on wisdom, and adapt to change.
I am reminded of Fiddler on the Roof Tevye believed in centuries old traditions for social coherence; yet each daughter challenges that tradition in their own ways
Tzeitel chooses love over an arranged marriage.
This is change within the community’s values.
Tevye bends the rules but keeps the framework.
Hodel chooses a revolutionary idealist (Perchik) and leaves for Siberia.
This is change that stretches the community’s boundaries.
Tevye strains to accept it because it still aligns with Jewish identity and moral purpose.
Chava marries outside the faith.
This is change that breaks the inherited framework entirely.
Tevye cannot reconcile this with his deepest commitments.
Tevye’s internal monologues show the heart of generational conflict:
He wants to honor tradition.
He wants to love his daughters.
He wants to survive in a changing world.
His repeated line—“On the other hand…”—captures the universal struggle of older generations trying to adapt without losing themselves.
The musical endures because it captures a pattern every society faces:
Tradition gives identity, but can become rigid.
Change brings freedom, but can fracture community.
Generations negotiate the boundary between the two.
The fiddler—balancing precariously while playing a beautiful tune—is the symbol of every generation trying to hold onto meaning while navigating change.
In the end, as Tevye's world collapses, he reconciles with Chava and her spouse because the story forces him to confront a truth deeper than the rules he has lived by: love and belonging endure even when tradition breaks. His reconciliation is not a reversal of his convictions but a recognition of their shared humanity in the face of exile and suffering.
What Fiddler on the Roof shows—more clearly than any abstract argument—is that social cohesion is not created by uniformity of norms but by the strength of relationships, empathy, and shared humanity. If cohesion requires one set of norms, then pluralism is impossible. But if cohesion requires commitment to each other despite differing norms, then pluralism becomes sustainable
@chrisstiles and even with the far right and religion, it's still very much about (a certain type of) religion as aesthetic - it's not about religion as a third space. It's never about volunteering at the church food bank for eg.
I would not argue the Greatest Generation was different than the Silent Generation. Yes, the Greatest Generation was less conservative than the previous one, largely due to urbanization and industrialization, but they were still conservative. Look at the white flight from the inner city (which is now being reversed by GenX, Z, and Alpha). Religion had modern golden era in the 50s. It has been downhill since, though, again, the Zs seem to be taking it up again more. In the US, at least, there was the attitude: My Country, right or wrong. The boomers countered "my country right or wrong, if right to keep it right; if wrong, to right it."
Actually, the Greatest Generation came of age during the 30s. The babies born from 40-45 were kind of like gap babies.
Right, it's equal parts the lowest effort possible and an inability to get away from the largely voluntaristic and parasocial aspects that they claim to despise.
[As a side note; as a few people have pointed out, the majority of those who were most prominent in the ruptures of the 60s were not Boomers - the SDS, the Black Panthers, the anti war movement, the Civil Rights movement etc. were all started by older - often much older - people].
You've changed the goalposts there with examples that do not accord with the original example so my words there do not apply.
In your examples, absolutely there should be resistance.
But, as I have said previously, the issue is the left espouses tolerance, until it does not accord with their values. Then they become as intolerant as those they purport to be saying are intolerant.
Then they were wrong.
Jesus is handy here. Loving your enemies does not mean agreeing with them, but responding in love which means speaking in a way that is wanting their best interests at heart.
(tho to be fair to the biblical tradition, he was often quite harsh with his enemies.)
Not at all. The left has gone too far left.
Under the Biden administration there was government intervention on FB to only allow views they agreed with. Cancel culture is rife (who needs evidence when there is association?). Freedom of speech was curtailed.
Elon Musk backed Trump in the last election precisely for these values. To prevent government censorship, freedom of speech and cancel culture. That's why he bought Twitter.
I think that's how Trump won.
What intervention would that be?
I do agree the left have to accept their social norms are not universal.
Not at all on your first point. The left has recently become too far left so they are legislating agains things that fail to conform to their social norms. That's not ok.
As for the second point absolutely. But the non conformists also have the right to protest against the conformists.
That's what liberal democracy is all about and we need to protect that.
Saying "it doesn't accord" is facile. Anyone can say that whether it's true or not. It's not going to persuade anyone who thinks it does.
You clearly want to believe this.
Could you provide some examples?
Biden isn't "the left", and governments of all stripes try to control the flow of information in emergencies like, say, a global pandemic.
Why is Musk's direct promotion of far right views ok simply because he does it with money but Biden's trying to limit misinformation via persuading other tech bros not?
Here you go. Very recent research that shows Twitter intentionally skews users to the right. So much for Musk's values.
The term “cancel culture” is used most frequently by conservative politicians, right‑leaning media, and public figures who feel targeted by social backlash. These groups frame it as censorship driven by progressive social norms. Some centrist or classical‑liberal writers also use the term to argue that public discourse has become overly punitive. In contrast, marginalized groups and progressive activists rarely use the phrase, viewing social consequences as accountability rather than suppression. Overall, the term is most common among groups who perceive a loss of cultural authority or feel their traditional viewpoints are being challenged.
I find the Trump administration very actively involved in the cancel culture when they take on higher education institutions for presenting a liberal bias; when they eliminate Diversity, Equality and Inclusion programs in National Displays--like taking down the information on slave auctions in Philadelphia; when they begin removing decorated servicewomen from combat roles in the military.
Traditional viewpoints have to be challenged. Just last night on NPR the author, Michael Harriot, was interviewed on a segment they called Settled In. Harriot argues if it was not for the contributions of slave labor, the early European settlers would not have been able to survive in the New World. Now, as a kid I hardly ever heard anything about slave labor contributions in the early colonization of America. Who was cancelling whom then? No, we need these voices heard. It makes for a fuller tapestry of who we really are.
That doesn't mean signing up for Musk's toxic tweets nor accepting the shit on the inappropriately named 'Truth Social'.
Still less does it mean banning the teaching of evolution in 'Bible-belt' US States or removing particular books from public libraries or complaining about the number of people of colour in TV adverts - all of which seem to be emanating from the populist right as we speak.
It's one thing for @WhimsicalChristian to point the finger at 'the left' without removing the dirty great big plank from the eyes of those closer to his end of the political spectrum.
Actually from the left or from the authoritarian centre, like Starmer proscribing Palestine Action?
I think in conventional use, the fact that I am not permitted to punch you in the face is a little stronger than what we call a "social norm".
So where are "the left" in power and able to threaten civil liberties, and how are they doing so? This "both sides" business is tiresome.
"The left" in general does accept this.
If you want to wear clothing that conceals various parts of your body, or your hair, the response of "the left" is "you can do that". Do you want to refrain from shopping or having fun on Sundays, and keep the day for prayer, Bible study, and quiet family time? You can do that. Do you want to have a "traditional" marriage with one man, one woman, and have "traditional" gender roles within your marriage? You can do that.
Don't like gay marriage? That's OK: nobody is making you have one. Think alcohol is sinful? That's OK: nobody will make you drink it.
You just don't get to impose your social norms on other people.
That's a nice pile of right wing talking points, but it doesn't line up with empirical reality.
Could you give some examples? I can't think of anywhere where the left is in power and able to do this within the UK/Anglosphere.
Seconded. I live in the USA and I'm not seeing any censorship from the left, except the privilege I exercise when I personally peel "pro-ICE" stickers off of signposts as I walk down the street.
I understand graffiti is subject to a sort of "law of the jungle."
To which Caissa replies: In some societies, under some circumstances, that would be an acceptable social norm.
You don't have to be 'in power' to do this sort of thing.
There can be pressures within groups, institutions and political parties whatever their stripe.
You will notice that the egregious instances I cited, such as efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in some US States and removing particular books from libraries or whingeing about the presence of black people in TV ads come from the right not the left.
That doesn't mean that the left isn't capable of exerting pressures to curb freedom of speech or expression in various situations.
Heck, I was roundly criticised on these boards for citing instances of Corbynistas destroying an otherwise viable local Labour Party group from the inside.
I was accused of favouring 'Blairites' or having a bias against the left and all sorts.
I'm unrepentant.
People I know and respect were very hurt by it and I know capable former Labour activists who are no longer involved in politics at all as a result.
In that instance pegs were forced out of holes because they didn't fit the ideology of a particular group who muscled in and gave them a hard time.
I'm sure the same has happened in reverse with left-wing Labour activists and supporters ousted or made unwelcome by centrists or 'Blue Labour' types.
I know some people here find the 'both' thing annoying but life doesn't neatly boil down into goodies and baddies like old Hollywood Westerns.
Populism is bad from whichever direction it comes.
Any group, whether it be political, religious, sporty, artistic or whatever else can exert a certain amount of pressure to conform.
I'm hearing of Orthodox parishes in the US where everyone either votes Republican or Democrat. Anyone whose politics differs from the prevailing hegemony feels excluded and ends up going somewhere else.
I don't believe that's healthy.
None of us are immune to this.
Heck, if anyone came to one of the open-mic poetry events I sometimes attend and came out with a mildly right-wing poem they wouldn't be welcome at all. There's a tacit assumption that everyone there is going to be on the left of the political spectrum.
Ok, that's not heavy-duty pressure but it is a form of conformity.
We don’t have many fundamentalists on these boards any more. Not because we have driven them away with pitchforks or 'cancelled' them but because they don't fit in for very long.
If there is a preponderance of any particular viewpoint or stance then anyone with a different view is going to feel out of place.
Without actually having details it's hard to judge. One would assume that if a pattern is repeated and prevalent it would show up in national reporting, and there's a lacuna here -- doubly so given how keen the press was to report problems on the left from 2015 onwards.
I think local politics regardless of party or region generally attracts particular personality types, and they can be prone to clashing with each other. I think that's due to the kinds of people who get involved in local politics more than anything else.
Additionally, while obviously there are exceptions, the arts in general lean leftwards simply because art has a tendency to be inspired by social issues. The process of making art is also often in conflict with late-stage capitalism.
My point is that happens at a local or micro level where there are pressures, however mild, to conform, can grow at a macro or societal level or at regional, national and international levels.
At the extremes of course we get examples like North Korea or Albania under Enver Hoxha.
Or vicious fascist regimes.
On the particular Labour Party branch issue, I've said on these boards before that I was impressed by the response and procedures the Party had in place when things became too toxic.
But I still feel that there's an unhealthy internal culture within Labour which has always put me off even when I was a Labour voter.
It's not 'both-sides-ism' to acknowledge faults and issues on our own particular side of things where necessary.
I really don't understand why some if you seem so 'touchy' on this issue.
The most egregious examples I gave all came from the right and were aimed at @WhimsicalChristian who appears to overlook these things to a certain extent when criticising 'the left.'
I make the not unreasonable comment that vigilance is also required on the left and liberal side of things and people react as if I'm saying that there are cheese-eating jelly monsters on the far side of the moon.