To echo something you wrote on another thread about not dissing RCs and Orthodox @Bullfrog and if my post was misleading, I'm not accusing you of metropolitan elitism.
I was simply making the observation that metropolitan elitism is a thing, not accusing you of it. You've shared a few things about your particular background on these boards before and whilst I've said I can't 'speak to' your situation I can certainly feel your passion.
I think we are posting at cross purposes here.
And yes, I think things can become too binary and polarised and that bothers me too.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Just because someone is from a small town does not excuse their political behavior.
I've had too many heated arguments in both directions about the urban/rural divide in America. I think you inadvertently made yourself a lightning rod for some pent up frustration I have with America's inability to listen to itself.
And one thing I still carry from small town USA is a lot of people who end up feeling neglected and ignored, this is true. I think @Nick Tamen gets it also. That much I sympathize with, and it makes me angry. I think even @WhimsicalChristian sees that, and thinks he's recruiting them for the far right. The bit after the comma is where I disagree.
My impression is our fearless leader (also the far right, these are to me more or less the same) are feeding in that despair and turning it into hate, nativism, and scarcity mentality. They think if we can turn enough wars on we can revert to a protectionist economy. This will, in theory, force more economic opportunity back into the factories that left places like my hometown. Shout out to Kelly Tire Plant! Trouble is, that ain't happening. Not without a lot of union busting and a huge drop in quality of life, which nobody wants to talk about too loudly.
It's still hella expensive to "Buy American," even after the tariffs. And nobody wants to pay those wages in depressed small towns. Just ask them about raising the minimum wage, all the conservatives will complain mightily about how business owners already can't afford to stay afloat.
I was just texting with a friend from high school about how the county government had discreetly, without public comment, decided to set up a data center in the former site of a paper mill that had recently shuttered. Will this bring back the old economy? No. Will it generate the same employment opportunity? No. It might bring in a few jobs. It'll also drive up electric bills, mess up the river, and generally not do much for the community.
And my friend's impression is the county leadership didn't have a meeting because they knew it'd inspire controversy. They didn't want to deal with the heat. But that's small town politics. There's a lot of quiet corruption that goes on and nobody does much about it because it's a lot of work without much return. And most of the young folks just head out to the cities, kinda like I did.
So, yeah. Not everyone back home is conservative but most everyone is kinda ticked off and feels "left behind" and that does make Trumpism kind of weirdly appealing, even if I'm pretty sure the man ain't going to do jack shit for anyone in the area. And he hasn't.
So...me? A big city liberal elitist? Nah, I'm a much more complicated beast than that. I wouldn't think to tell them what to do, but I do have some concerns.
I've had people calling me a dumb liberal since I was a kid. And now they want to call me an oppressor? As the old man used to say: SAD!
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
And I really need to find a better paradox to append myself to, because I love paradoxes. But the paradox of tolerance isn't something I came up with. That notions is...*checks wikipedia*...older than my dad. Thank Karl Popper for that one.
CK Chesterton says Christianity is so effective because it is a religion of paradox.
@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
@WhimsicalChristian Conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity change over time, and across cultures. For instance, women wearing trousers, men wearing make up, and so on.
Of course.
Doesn't make objecting to your current conventional definition wrong. That's your right in a liberal democracy be it left, right or centre.
What's this 'social fabric'? Twill? Polyester? Does it like going to parties?
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
You’re still not answering the question. Exactly how is the social fabric actually harmed? It’s simply not enough to say the social fabric is harmed; if there is real harm, then it shouldn’t be difficult to describe that real harm and its effects.
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
There are cavils about the 'metropolitan elite' from the left as well as the right.
I understand what you are getting at but I've encountered plenty of core working-class 'red wall' Labour supporters who feel patronised by certain elements of what we might call the 'liberal establishment.'
I don't see it as a binary left vs right issue.
I'd agree that in some conservative small c and Big C circles being left wing to any extent is seen as an aberration. I've come across that in true-blue rural Tory heartlands.
I've also come across true blue Tory voters who seem unable to understand why anyone would vote Labour unless they were 'horny-handed sons of toil' and are completely discombobulated when they find people in 'professional' jobs who vote Labour.
But I think things have shifted from the time when, in traditional Labour strongholds, not voting Labour but voting Conservative was seen as a sign of social advancement. Think Alderman Thatcher.
I can see what you are saying but I think it's more nuanced and complicated now.
'Cohesion' based on 'like us' in terms of birthplace, language, skin colour, attitudes etc I don't really grok. Solidarity I can grasp, e.g. I feel concern for things that affect women per women, irrespective of nationality.
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
Presumably you mean his grandfather. But in what sense was Mandelson 'socialist'?
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
Presumably you mean his grandfather. But in what sense was Mandelson 'socialist'?
@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
I think you’re alluding to people taking offense. That’s self inflicted.
True, many rural people think they are getting shafted--er, being ignored. Often times, though, they complain about government interference. They complain about all the tax dollars going to the cities, but if a person looks at the actual numbers more tax dollars flow from the cities to rural areas (the one exception might be in highways). My state has one of the highest minimum wage laws in the country. My son, who owned a bar at the time, also complained wages, actually found that it was not wages that was killing him, but the high cost of local taxes. This seems to be borne out in my small town too. We have lost a threatre complex, the only full-service hardware store, and a food court because the owners could not afford the taxes anymore. One local business man has even relocated his aviation wing (he has several planes) from our airport to another airport in Idaho 15 miles away because of Washington taxes.
Rural people want free markets. Trump kind of killed that with his tariff scheme. He has promised price supports, but the farmers don't want handouts. Even though the tariffs have been ruled illegal, foreign buyers are leery of getting back into the American markets.
To the point of the county allowing a data center coming in, I think that goes to show the need for a strong open meetings law. Our county commissioners have tried twice now to instill operations that would actually have been detrimental to our area. Both times when the proposals were made, the people objected and have made such a fuss about it, they have been cancelled, thanks to the Open Meetings Law in our state. Now, if we could just vote a couple of the commissioners out of office.
I have read a couple of books about the differences in county governments in Southern States so I can see how data centers seem to like to locate in the South due to lax government
I can see why Trump was so appealing to the rural population, but I think most in my area have realized how he has shafted them. Not only did foreign buyers abandoned American crops, but he cancelled a program put forward by Biden which would have created low carbon sustainable farming practices. This was quite popular around here.
Now, if the Democrats can come up with a platform that will appeal to the rural communities, I think there will be a shift away from the Republican party.
What's this 'social fabric'? Twill? Polyester? Does it like going to parties?
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
What's this 'social fabric'? Twill? Polyester? Does it like going to parties?
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
The main question aside, both the UK and Australia would seem on that measure to be very high trust societies.
I wonder if the American split has to do with our Puritan background. While this puts all Americans in a singular category, I am wondering how that figure would break down into certain sub groups i.e. education, wealth, location, generation etc.
And I really need to find a better paradox to append myself to, because I love paradoxes. But the paradox of tolerance isn't something I came up with. That notions is...*checks wikipedia*...older than my dad. Thank Karl Popper for that one.
CK Chesterton says Christianity is so effective because it is a religion of paradox.
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
You can find diversity in rural areas, you just have to look for it. But "diverse" populations tend to go where the jobs are and it's harder to find jobs in rural areas.
And if, per conservative economics, you have a mindset of competition, it's easy to fall into ugly stereotypes and only see "diversity" as "other people who aren't me." And then you get stereotypes and "me first" and a certain contemptible shillbilly politician who I will not design to name making idiotic remarks about people eating stray animals...
But yeah, there are folks in small towns who are fine with diversity. They just aren't always the politically dominant coalition. Just like in cities you have...people of unfortunate opinion...who aren't in the politically dominant coalition. That's how it is.
What's this 'social fabric'? Twill? Polyester? Does it like going to parties?
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
The main question aside, both the UK and Australia would seem on that measure to be very high trust societies.
I wonder if the American split has to do with our Puritan background. While this puts all Americans in a singular category, I am wondering how that figure would break down into certain sub groups i.e. education, wealth, location, generation etc.
I suspect the effect of “our Puritan background” on American culture is more a thing of American mythos than of reality. Maybe 2% of the American population actually has “Puritan background.” The Puritans were influential in Massachusetts particularly and New England more generally, but that was pretty much the limit. Yes, that meant the many early leaders in the Republic came from a Puritan background, but certainly not all did. Even in colonial days, Puritans had little if any presence or influence in the Mid-Atlantic or Southern colonies.
Then in the 19th and 20th Centuries, lots of other immigrant groups deluted Puritan influence. The leaders that came from New England became the likes of the Irish Catholic Kennedys, not the Mayflower descendants.
And let’s face it, the main descendant of those early Puritans and New England Congregationalists is the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal of American denominations.
The Puritan roots of the US are definitely part of the American mythos, particularly in November around Thanksgiving or when talking about American attitudes about sex. But I do question how much actual truth there is to it, as well as how much it accurately reflects a realistic understanding of the Puritans in New England.
And one thing I still carry from small town USA is a lot of people who end up feeling neglected and ignored, this is true. I think @Nick Tamen gets it also.
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
You can find diversity in rural areas, you just have to look for it. But "diverse" populations tend to go where the jobs are and it's harder to find jobs in rural areas.
And if, per conservative economics, you have a mindset of competition, it's easy to fall into ugly stereotypes and only see "diversity" as "other people who aren't me." And then you get stereotypes and "me first" and a certain contemptible shillbilly politician who I will not design to name making idiotic remarks about people eating stray animals...
But yeah, there are folks in small towns who are fine with diversity. They just aren't always the politically dominant coalition. Just like in cities you have...people of unfortunate opinion...who aren't in the politically dominant coalition. That's how it is.
See? Nuance! I can do this...
In my area, all five county commissioners have a slice of the college town where I live to avoid it becoming politically dominant. If they were to split the county solely on population density, my town should have three of the county seats.
That opening strikethrough as comedic gold, thanks for that. Catches the attitude perfectly.
Rural areas are a ton more expensive per capita and yet the regional economy tends to look a lot weaker, which is a recipe for resentment, I think. There just aren't enough people to keep a lot of big city amenities running. I get the sense you're talking about Washington State, but the vibe feels a lot like Maryland, another high-tax blue state competing with low-tax red state neighbors and there's a lot of border hopping as people try to save money. And when policies are set by people who live in the metro areas around Baltimore, it's only logical that they're not going to be set at the convenience of Cumberland. This breeds resentment even under good circumstances. And I hear earfuls of it even from liberals "back home." And I can't blame them, Chicago city slicker though I've become to them. Chicago has a similar effect on regional smaller communities. You just take it in stride.
So, the theory goes, free markets will make small town rural areas more competitive by undermining the taxes that make things overpriced. That's traditional conservative thinking. That was Reagan's sales pitch, continued by Clinton and fulfilled by Bush II. I'm curious if @WhimsicalChristian agrees, since he seems to be post-globalization. It's certainly the economic suck that I grew up in. Trouble is, with global trade, you have to live near a center of trade to benefit properly from globalization, not deep in the hills. Extraction economies are a different animal than trade economies. A rising tide does not lift all boats.
So now he's trying to sell us all on protectionism!
But I agree. That's failing at Econ 101. It's a scam and eventually they're going to figure it out. People may dream of ripping more lucrative black "rock" out of the ground, but coal ain't coming back and the history of that industry is nightmare fuel. Plus...you know...climate change is A Thing.
Sad thing is a lot of people, like the gentleman in the song, are desperate. And while I do think they're making some questionable choices, I do have some appreciation for the context.
Some folks might understand why the topic makes me just a wee bit angry. "These people" (and yes, that's a damned generalization but one must acknowledge a political movement when one sees it) aren't exactly stupid. And they aren't exactly evil. There is a situation to be handled here.
This country has a lot to answer for. And it's going to have a lot more the way things are going.
And let’s face it, the main descendant of those early Puritans and New England Congregationalists is the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal of American denominations.
Let us also not forget that those same Congregationalists were the heavy-handed reason why Thomas Jefferson returned a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 assuring them of the "wall of separation between Church & State."
I agree with @Nick Tamen, though, that today "our Puritan background" is both hugely overblown and highly sanitized. I always recommend Nathanial Philbrick's MAYFLOWER for a thorough, nuanced, uncomfortably honest and wonderfully written treatment of 'our Puritan background.'
In my area, all five county commissioners have a slice of the college town where I live to avoid it becoming politically dominant. If they were to split the county solely on population density, my town should have three of the county seats.
Yeah, that's a choice. Not being local to the area, I'm not sure I'd tell them how to do that, but it's interesting.
@Nick Tamen : Amusingly, on puritans, one wing of my family does go back to the Mayflower. I don't think it makes me special, but it's funny to bring up sometimes.
there's a lot of border hopping as people try to save money.
I plead guilty, especially when the total state tax on gasoline is $1.50 while the total state tax on gas in Idaho is $0.51. Heck, when I am driving through a reservation, I am not above contributing to the tribal coffers.
there's a lot of border hopping as people try to save money.
I plead guilty, especially when the total state tax on gasoline is $1.50 while the total state tax on gas in Idaho is $0.51. Heck, when I am driving through a reservation, I am not above contributing to the tribal coffers.
No shame in it. My uncle laughed about dodging Maryland's onerous cigarette taxes. I think I heard recently of people going from the red state to the blue state for various advantages.
When we drive back to Chicago from Maryland, we definitely make a point of loading up on gas at the last stop in Indiana, and hoo boy is there always a line.
@Nick Tamen : Amusingly, on puritans, one wing of my family does go back to the Mayflower. I don't think it makes me special, but it's funny to bring up sometimes.
My grandmother’s family (the line of her maiden name) goes back to the Susan Constant and Jamestown, so the Mayflower folks were viewed as Johnny-Come-Latelys.
But no, it doesn’t make me special at all. I’m well aware that my family history gives me just as much, if not more, to be ashamed of as to be proud of—a white guy from the American South who comes from old property-owning families would be truly foolish and naïve to think otherwise.
@Nick Tamen : Amusingly, on puritans, one wing of my family does go back to the Mayflower. I don't think it makes me special, but it's funny to bring up sometimes.
My grandmother’s family (the line of her maiden name) goes back to the Susan Constant and Jamestown, so the Mayflower folks were viewed as Johnny-Come-Latelys.
But no, it doesn’t make me special at all. I’m well aware that my family history gives me just as much, if not more, to be ashamed of as to be proud of—a white guy from the American South who comes from old property-owning families would be truly foolish and naïve to think otherwise.
The little girl who hopped off the Mayflower first is - depending on which memory I work from - either a direct or indirect ancestor of mine on my paternal grandpa's side. I think if my various lineages were all capable of voicing their own opinions independently, I'd be constantly fighting myself...
I think if my various lineages were all capable of voicing their own opinions independently, I'd be constantly fighting myself...
...which might explain a few things.
Heh! As the descendant both of “Patriots” (as understood by the Daughters of the American Revolution), including two of the relatively few female Patriots, and of United Empire Loyalists, I can relate.
Pretty sure all my ancestors were agricultural labourers of one sort or another once you go back 150 years or so. That's been the theme from what's turned up in genealogical research.
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
Presumably you mean his grandfather. But in what sense was Mandelson 'socialist'?
This.
No True Scotsmen?
But yes, I did mean his grandfather and no, I don't think Mandelson was socialist in any sense.
At what point though, does a 'champagne socialist' cease becoming a socialist?
How many crates or glasses of champagne does it take?
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
Presumably you mean his grandfather. But in what sense was Mandelson 'socialist'?
This.
No True Scotsmen?
But yes, I did mean his grandfather and no, I don't think Mandelson was socialist in any sense.
At what point though, does a 'champagne socialist' cease becoming a socialist?
How many crates or glasses of champagne does it take?
Well, presumably you made your own decision and it wasn't based on champagne consumption.
I would base it on his politics, which were centrist at best.
The "big city metropolitan elite" allegation often seems to me to be a cop-out, and ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the issue at hand. Part of my suspicion here is that if you live in a rural area and have left wing views you get accused of wanting diversity for others [in big cities] while not 'suffering' it yourself. It's another variation on the "champagne socialist" vs "politics of envy" allegations. There is no legitimate way to be left wing in the eyes of the right.
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
Presumably you mean his grandfather. But in what sense was Mandelson 'socialist'?
This.
No True Scotsmen?
But yes, I did mean his grandfather and no, I don't think Mandelson was socialist in any sense.
At what point though, does a 'champagne socialist' cease becoming a socialist?
How many crates or glasses of champagne does it take?
My original point was that rich socialists get accused of hypocrisy, poor socialists accused of envy. I don't think there is a level of wealth that inherently makes one "not a socialist".
I was teasing of course, but there is a serious point.
FWIW I don't believe that there is a level of wealth beyond which it becomes hypocritical for someone to call themselves a socialist.
I've always found it puzzling though when I hear of Labour politicians and other Labour supporters sending their kids to private schools, for instance but I've heard that defended on various grounds.
I've mentioned upthread that I've encountered the view among certain Conservatives that anyone who votes Labour and isn't poor or tradionally working-class must have something wrong with them.
There is the rich man and the eye of the needle thing too of course.
I s'pose I'd describe myself as a social democrat rather than anything else. But it depends on the issue. I'd be more than happy to tax the super-rich until their pips squeak for instance.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is that if you think tolerance is a good you think intolerance is bad. If you think it's good to live and let live, you rather have to object to the people who aren't letting live.
I think maybe you need to read up on Bullfrog's paradox of intolerance.
And why do you think that? Here is the wikipedia article. Which bit of "a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance" do you think I need to read up on?
Uh. I said that already. The left is allowed to be intolerant when it suits them.
You just can't complain when the right do the same.
No, the left is not allowed to be intolerant whenever it suits them. The position is that one has to be intolerant only when other people are being intolerant first, and only of the intolerance.
[/quote]
LOL. It all comes down to definitions of intolerance again.
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is that if you think tolerance is a good you think intolerance is bad. If you think it's good to live and let live, you rather have to object to the people who aren't letting live.
I think maybe you need to read up on Bullfrog's paradox of intolerance.
And why do you think that? Here is the wikipedia article. Which bit of "a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance" do you think I need to read up on?
Uh. I said that already. The left is allowed to be intolerant when it suits them.
You just can't complain when the right do the same.
You have not answered my question, nor have you said it already. It's true that you're repeating yourself, but what you're repeating is your starting position.
No, the left is not allowed to be intolerant whenever it suits them. The position is that one has to be intolerant only when other people are being intolerant first, and only of the intolerance.
People who want to be intolerant obviously don't like this, which why they make up specious comparisons. I note you implicitly say that the right don't have principles about when it's ok to be intolerant and when it isn't; they just want to be intolerant when it suits them - you explicitly say that the right do what you're accusing the left of doing.
It's like a criminal complaining that the police are allowed to arrest people when it suits them, so the police can't complain when the criminal does the same. For that matter, you never have said why it's alright for the right to be intolerant of deviations from social norms, but not alright for radical Islamic theocrats to be intolerant. You said the cases were different because... you said the cases were different.
[/quote]
What was your question?
You say the left is not allowed to be intolerant whenever it suits them, but only when other people are being intolerant first, only of the intolerance.
But the intolerant and intolerance is defined by the left, so it is when it suits their values.
I have repeatedly said the right is at least open and consistent with their intolerance. The problem is the left isn't. They espouse tolerance. So it's hypocritical.
I never said it's alright for radical Islamic theocrats to be intolerant. That's what they are and they make no secret of it.
Getting back to the OP. the issue is double standards.
@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
You’re still not answering the question. Exactly how is the social fabric actually harmed? It’s simply not enough to say the social fabric is harmed; if there is real harm, then it shouldn’t be difficult to describe that real harm and its effects.
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
What's this 'social fabric'? Twill? Polyester? Does it like going to parties?
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
Tolerance is a social contract, not a moral principle. The default for the left is that it is offered to all. It's withdrawn when the offer is not reciprocated. The right starts with groups of people they will not tolerate. That's the difference.
@WhimsicalChristian - So being open and consistent in one's intolerance is a virtue?
That's a new one on me.
FWIW I'm not sure any of this stuff maps neatly into a left/right divide or a party political one.
I've met very illiberal liberals as well as people who are highly conservative on some things but 'progressive' on others.
It does tend to separate along ideological lines but there are fuzzy boundaries on some issues too of course.
I don't think a binary 'the left are all hypocrites while the right are squeaky clean,' works any better than 'the left have halos whereas the right have horns sticking out of their heads.'
It's possible to take a position one way or the other without ad hominems.
But then I'll be accused of 'both-sides-ism.'
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
Australians often use language as inoffensive that others find offensive.
I don't know enough about dialects to know if any specific First Nation groups speak in this way, but in my observation it would be considered a mild insult by most people.
I think I might be repeating a story I mentioned before but when I was in Canberra I visited the Old Parliament building, which is now a museum of Australian democracy. On the lawn outside is the "Aboriginal Tent Embassy" where First Nation groups have had a continuous protest for 40+ years.
It really is a clash of cultures because the overwhelming message from the museum is that all sections of the community should be and feel included in the political system of the nation. The Tent Embassy wants to negotiate with the Crown on the basis of being sovereign indigenous nations.
There appears to be a certain section of rightwing politics in Australia that thinks First Nation people already have too much political power, which I think links back into various things including that the "conservative" view represents western civilisation and the "progressive" view suggests that it can't be too difficult to include people who are different.
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
Indeed they don't and I've had robust discussions with my uncle on Brexit, racism and all sorts of other issues without calling him names.
I've told he's been talking bollocks at times but that's a comment on what he says not an ad hominem attack.
You'd be the first to complain if a right-winger used offensive language towards someone on the left but somehow it's alright for leftwingers to use it against people on the right.
Besides it was counterproductive. Calling him a 'c**t' only reinforced his view that the left he used to support has moved away from him. He used to be a very lefty shop-steward.
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
Indeed they don't and I've had robust discussions with my uncle on Brexit, racism and all sorts of other issues without calling him names.
I've told he's been talking bollocks at times but that's a comment on what he says not an ad hominem attack.
You'd be the first to complain if a right-winger used offensive language towards someone on the left but somehow it's alright for leftwingers to use it against people on the right.
Besides it was counterproductive. Calling him a 'c**t' only reinforced his view that the left he used to support has moved away from him. He used to be a very lefty shop-steward.
I don't really give a shit about policing people's tone. Jacob Reese-Mogg was always tonally polite while saying and supporting awful things. The language used is not my issue.
It's a little early in your career here on the Ship to be sub-Hosting like this, and using it to dodge some of us. If any of the questions asked of you, or suggestions made that you haven't answered something adequately (which is true for at least a few of us here) were inappropriate, an actual Host would weigh-in.
You haven't specified anything at all about the harm you insist is ongoing. I'm just gonna say you're taking offense, meaning you're self-harming b/c of your mindset.
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
Indeed they don't and I've had robust discussions with my uncle on Brexit, racism and all sorts of other issues without calling him names.
I've told he's been talking bollocks at times but that's a comment on what he says not an ad hominem attack.
You'd be the first to complain if a right-winger used offensive language towards someone on the left but somehow it's alright for leftwingers to use it against people on the right.
Besides it was counterproductive. Calling him a 'c**t' only reinforced his view that the left he used to support has moved away from him. He used to be a very lefty shop-steward.
Racism on the left has a long history, him having previously been very left-wing does not absolve him of his racism.
I was teasing of course, but there is a serious point.
FWIW I don't believe that there is a level of wealth beyond which it becomes hypocritical for someone to call themselves a socialist.
I've always found it puzzling though when I hear of Labour politicians and other Labour supporters sending their kids to private schools, for instance but I've heard that defended on various grounds.
I've mentioned upthread that I've encountered the view among certain Conservatives that anyone who votes Labour and isn't poor or tradionally working-class must have something wrong with them.
There is the rich man and the eye of the needle thing too of course.
I s'pose I'd describe myself as a social democrat rather than anything else. But it depends on the issue. I'd be more than happy to tax the super-rich until their pips squeak for instance.
Does that make me a socialist?
A lot of areas in the UK have very poor SEND provision, and a lot of private schools do much better there. I can't fault any parent of disabled children opting for the private sector given the shit-show in the state sector, particularly given the issues with Academy schools and ableism.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sending your child to private school while also working to improve the state sector. I don't see why that should be seen as strange or hypocritical. I don't personally think that private schools are inherently bad, I think the problem comes from privately educated people being disproportionately favoured by certain areas of society. The solution is to improve state schools to the same level, especially in access to the arts.
What's this 'social fabric'? Twill? Polyester? Does it like going to parties?
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
We're not allowed to talk about that here.
Well, if you're so inclined, you can go to the appropriate forum and be up front about your personal experience with the matter. It just takes a little common courtesy to speak to people of a different experience than yourself.
If you really want to learn to be a political operative, these are useful skills to practice.
Racism on the left has a long history, him having previously been very left-wing does not absolve him of his racism.
That's the bloody truth. That's a big reason why I start to hate the whole "progressive versus conservative" dynamic. A lot of us (not speaking for people of color) get ground up in the gears of that ideological dynamic.
Comments
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Just because someone is from a small town does not excuse their political behavior.
I've had too many heated arguments in both directions about the urban/rural divide in America. I think you inadvertently made yourself a lightning rod for some pent up frustration I have with America's inability to listen to itself.
And one thing I still carry from small town USA is a lot of people who end up feeling neglected and ignored, this is true. I think @Nick Tamen gets it also. That much I sympathize with, and it makes me angry. I think even @WhimsicalChristian sees that, and thinks he's recruiting them for the far right. The bit after the comma is where I disagree.
My impression is our fearless leader (also the far right, these are to me more or less the same) are feeding in that despair and turning it into hate, nativism, and scarcity mentality. They think if we can turn enough wars on we can revert to a protectionist economy. This will, in theory, force more economic opportunity back into the factories that left places like my hometown. Shout out to Kelly Tire Plant! Trouble is, that ain't happening. Not without a lot of union busting and a huge drop in quality of life, which nobody wants to talk about too loudly.
It's still hella expensive to "Buy American," even after the tariffs. And nobody wants to pay those wages in depressed small towns. Just ask them about raising the minimum wage, all the conservatives will complain mightily about how business owners already can't afford to stay afloat.
I was just texting with a friend from high school about how the county government had discreetly, without public comment, decided to set up a data center in the former site of a paper mill that had recently shuttered. Will this bring back the old economy? No. Will it generate the same employment opportunity? No. It might bring in a few jobs. It'll also drive up electric bills, mess up the river, and generally not do much for the community.
And my friend's impression is the county leadership didn't have a meeting because they knew it'd inspire controversy. They didn't want to deal with the heat. But that's small town politics. There's a lot of quiet corruption that goes on and nobody does much about it because it's a lot of work without much return. And most of the young folks just head out to the cities, kinda like I did.
So, yeah. Not everyone back home is conservative but most everyone is kinda ticked off and feels "left behind" and that does make Trumpism kind of weirdly appealing, even if I'm pretty sure the man ain't going to do jack shit for anyone in the area. And he hasn't.
So...me? A big city liberal elitist? Nah, I'm a much more complicated beast than that. I wouldn't think to tell them what to do, but I do have some concerns.
I've had people calling me a dumb liberal since I was a kid. And now they want to call me an oppressor? As the old man used to say: SAD!
CK Chesterton says Christianity is so effective because it is a religion of paradox.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
Of course.
Doesn't make objecting to your current conventional definition wrong. That's your right in a liberal democracy be it left, right or centre.
It shouldn't be hard if it's a serious and widespread matter to point to actual human beings in one's life and say how they are concretely affected. How has it directly and personally impacted their lives?
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
No, I think the 'champagne socialist' thing can be a reality. Look at Mandelson. Look at his dad.
There are cavils about the 'metropolitan elite' from the left as well as the right.
I understand what you are getting at but I've encountered plenty of core working-class 'red wall' Labour supporters who feel patronised by certain elements of what we might call the 'liberal establishment.'
I don't see it as a binary left vs right issue.
I'd agree that in some conservative small c and Big C circles being left wing to any extent is seen as an aberration. I've come across that in true-blue rural Tory heartlands.
I've also come across true blue Tory voters who seem unable to understand why anyone would vote Labour unless they were 'horny-handed sons of toil' and are completely discombobulated when they find people in 'professional' jobs who vote Labour.
But I think things have shifted from the time when, in traditional Labour strongholds, not voting Labour but voting Conservative was seen as a sign of social advancement. Think Alderman Thatcher.
I can see what you are saying but I think it's more nuanced and complicated now.
Nylon. Flimsy, artificial and highly flammable.
'Cohesion' based on 'like us' in terms of birthplace, language, skin colour, attitudes etc I don't really grok. Solidarity I can grasp, e.g. I feel concern for things that affect women per women, irrespective of nationality.
Presumably you mean his grandfather. But in what sense was Mandelson 'socialist'?
This.
I think you’re alluding to people taking offense. That’s self inflicted.
True, many rural people think they are getting shafted--er, being ignored. Often times, though, they complain about government interference. They complain about all the tax dollars going to the cities, but if a person looks at the actual numbers more tax dollars flow from the cities to rural areas (the one exception might be in highways). My state has one of the highest minimum wage laws in the country. My son, who owned a bar at the time, also complained wages, actually found that it was not wages that was killing him, but the high cost of local taxes. This seems to be borne out in my small town too. We have lost a threatre complex, the only full-service hardware store, and a food court because the owners could not afford the taxes anymore. One local business man has even relocated his aviation wing (he has several planes) from our airport to another airport in Idaho 15 miles away because of Washington taxes.
Rural people want free markets. Trump kind of killed that with his tariff scheme. He has promised price supports, but the farmers don't want handouts. Even though the tariffs have been ruled illegal, foreign buyers are leery of getting back into the American markets.
To the point of the county allowing a data center coming in, I think that goes to show the need for a strong open meetings law. Our county commissioners have tried twice now to instill operations that would actually have been detrimental to our area. Both times when the proposals were made, the people objected and have made such a fuss about it, they have been cancelled, thanks to the Open Meetings Law in our state. Now, if we could just vote a couple of the commissioners out of office.
I have read a couple of books about the differences in county governments in Southern States so I can see how data centers seem to like to locate in the South due to lax government
I can see why Trump was so appealing to the rural population, but I think most in my area have realized how he has shafted them. Not only did foreign buyers abandoned American crops, but he cancelled a program put forward by Biden which would have created low carbon sustainable farming practices. This was quite popular around here.
Now, if the Democrats can come up with a platform that will appeal to the rural communities, I think there will be a shift away from the Republican party.
This crossed my feed today:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-country-survey-americans-especially-likely-to-view-fellow-citizens-as-morally-bad/pr_2026-03-05_international-morality_0_01/
The main question aside, both the UK and Australia would seem on that measure to be very high trust societies.
I wonder if the American split has to do with our Puritan background. While this puts all Americans in a singular category, I am wondering how that figure would break down into certain sub groups i.e. education, wealth, location, generation etc.
Good to know I'm in fine company, then.
You can find diversity in rural areas, you just have to look for it. But "diverse" populations tend to go where the jobs are and it's harder to find jobs in rural areas.
And if, per conservative economics, you have a mindset of competition, it's easy to fall into ugly stereotypes and only see "diversity" as "other people who aren't me." And then you get stereotypes and "me first" and a certain contemptible shillbilly politician who I will not design to name making idiotic remarks about people eating stray animals...
But yeah, there are folks in small towns who are fine with diversity. They just aren't always the politically dominant coalition. Just like in cities you have...people of unfortunate opinion...who aren't in the politically dominant coalition. That's how it is.
See? Nuance! I can do this...
Then in the 19th and 20th Centuries, lots of other immigrant groups deluted Puritan influence. The leaders that came from New England became the likes of the Irish Catholic Kennedys, not the Mayflower descendants.
And let’s face it, the main descendant of those early Puritans and New England Congregationalists is the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal of American denominations.
The Puritan roots of the US are definitely part of the American mythos, particularly in November around Thanksgiving or when talking about American attitudes about sex. But I do question how much actual truth there is to it, as well as how much it accurately reflects a realistic understanding of the Puritans in New England.
👋🏻
In my area, all five county commissioners have a slice of the college town where I live to avoid it becoming politically dominant. If they were to split the county solely on population density, my town should have three of the county seats.
That's....not bad.....
That opening strikethrough as comedic gold, thanks for that. Catches the attitude perfectly.
Rural areas are a ton more expensive per capita and yet the regional economy tends to look a lot weaker, which is a recipe for resentment, I think. There just aren't enough people to keep a lot of big city amenities running. I get the sense you're talking about Washington State, but the vibe feels a lot like Maryland, another high-tax blue state competing with low-tax red state neighbors and there's a lot of border hopping as people try to save money. And when policies are set by people who live in the metro areas around Baltimore, it's only logical that they're not going to be set at the convenience of Cumberland. This breeds resentment even under good circumstances. And I hear earfuls of it even from liberals "back home." And I can't blame them, Chicago city slicker though I've become to them. Chicago has a similar effect on regional smaller communities. You just take it in stride.
So, the theory goes, free markets will make small town rural areas more competitive by undermining the taxes that make things overpriced. That's traditional conservative thinking. That was Reagan's sales pitch, continued by Clinton and fulfilled by Bush II. I'm curious if @WhimsicalChristian agrees, since he seems to be post-globalization. It's certainly the economic suck that I grew up in. Trouble is, with global trade, you have to live near a center of trade to benefit properly from globalization, not deep in the hills. Extraction economies are a different animal than trade economies. A rising tide does not lift all boats.
So now he's trying to sell us all on protectionism!
But I agree. That's failing at Econ 101. It's a scam and eventually they're going to figure it out. People may dream of ripping more lucrative black "rock" out of the ground, but coal ain't coming back and the history of that industry is nightmare fuel. Plus...you know...climate change is A Thing.
Here's a song by a gentle liberal country singer I'm fond of. I love this guy. I think it catches the vibe a little too well.
Sad thing is a lot of people, like the gentleman in the song, are desperate. And while I do think they're making some questionable choices, I do have some appreciation for the context.
Some folks might understand why the topic makes me just a wee bit angry. "These people" (and yes, that's a damned generalization but one must acknowledge a political movement when one sees it) aren't exactly stupid. And they aren't exactly evil. There is a situation to be handled here.
This country has a lot to answer for. And it's going to have a lot more the way things are going.
[I'm teasing there...but with an edge. I know my regional history. Battle of Blair Mountain was a trip.]
Let us also not forget that those same Congregationalists were the heavy-handed reason why Thomas Jefferson returned a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 assuring them of the "wall of separation between Church & State."
I agree with @Nick Tamen, though, that today "our Puritan background" is both hugely overblown and highly sanitized. I always recommend Nathanial Philbrick's MAYFLOWER for a thorough, nuanced, uncomfortably honest and wonderfully written treatment of 'our Puritan background.'
Yeah, that's a choice. Not being local to the area, I'm not sure I'd tell them how to do that, but it's interesting.
The other wings are all different, of course.
I plead guilty, especially when the total state tax on gasoline is $1.50 while the total state tax on gas in Idaho is $0.51. Heck, when I am driving through a reservation, I am not above contributing to the tribal coffers.
No shame in it. My uncle laughed about dodging Maryland's onerous cigarette taxes. I think I heard recently of people going from the red state to the blue state for various advantages.
When we drive back to Chicago from Maryland, we definitely make a point of loading up on gas at the last stop in Indiana, and hoo boy is there always a line.
But no, it doesn’t make me special at all. I’m well aware that my family history gives me just as much, if not more, to be ashamed of as to be proud of—a white guy from the American South who comes from old property-owning families would be truly foolish and naïve to think otherwise.
The little girl who hopped off the Mayflower first is - depending on which memory I work from - either a direct or indirect ancestor of mine on my paternal grandpa's side. I think if my various lineages were all capable of voicing their own opinions independently, I'd be constantly fighting myself...
...which might explain a few things.
No True Scotsmen?
But yes, I did mean his grandfather and no, I don't think Mandelson was socialist in any sense.
At what point though, does a 'champagne socialist' cease becoming a socialist?
How many crates or glasses of champagne does it take?
Well, presumably you made your own decision and it wasn't based on champagne consumption.
I would base it on his politics, which were centrist at best.
My original point was that rich socialists get accused of hypocrisy, poor socialists accused of envy. I don't think there is a level of wealth that inherently makes one "not a socialist".
I was teasing of course, but there is a serious point.
FWIW I don't believe that there is a level of wealth beyond which it becomes hypocritical for someone to call themselves a socialist.
I've always found it puzzling though when I hear of Labour politicians and other Labour supporters sending their kids to private schools, for instance but I've heard that defended on various grounds.
I've mentioned upthread that I've encountered the view among certain Conservatives that anyone who votes Labour and isn't poor or tradionally working-class must have something wrong with them.
There is the rich man and the eye of the needle thing too of course.
I s'pose I'd describe myself as a social democrat rather than anything else. But it depends on the issue. I'd be more than happy to tax the super-rich until their pips squeak for instance.
Does that make me a socialist?
[/quote]
LOL. It all comes down to definitions of intolerance again.
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed. You have not answered my question, nor have you said it already. It's true that you're repeating yourself, but what you're repeating is your starting position.
No, the left is not allowed to be intolerant whenever it suits them. The position is that one has to be intolerant only when other people are being intolerant first, and only of the intolerance.
People who want to be intolerant obviously don't like this, which why they make up specious comparisons. I note you implicitly say that the right don't have principles about when it's ok to be intolerant and when it isn't; they just want to be intolerant when it suits them - you explicitly say that the right do what you're accusing the left of doing.
It's like a criminal complaining that the police are allowed to arrest people when it suits them, so the police can't complain when the criminal does the same. For that matter, you never have said why it's alright for the right to be intolerant of deviations from social norms, but not alright for radical Islamic theocrats to be intolerant. You said the cases were different because... you said the cases were different.
[/quote]
What was your question?
You say the left is not allowed to be intolerant whenever it suits them, but only when other people are being intolerant first, only of the intolerance.
But the intolerant and intolerance is defined by the left, so it is when it suits their values.
I have repeatedly said the right is at least open and consistent with their intolerance. The problem is the left isn't. They espouse tolerance. So it's hypocritical.
I never said it's alright for radical Islamic theocrats to be intolerant. That's what they are and they make no secret of it.
Getting back to the OP. the issue is double standards.
We're not allowed to talk about such things here.
We're not allowed to talk about that here.
That's a new one on me.
FWIW I'm not sure any of this stuff maps neatly into a left/right divide or a party political one.
I've met very illiberal liberals as well as people who are highly conservative on some things but 'progressive' on others.
It does tend to separate along ideological lines but there are fuzzy boundaries on some issues too of course.
I don't think a binary 'the left are all hypocrites while the right are squeaky clean,' works any better than 'the left have halos whereas the right have horns sticking out of their heads.'
It's possible to take a position one way or the other without ad hominems.
But then I'll be accused of 'both-sides-ism.'
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
I don't know enough about dialects to know if any specific First Nation groups speak in this way, but in my observation it would be considered a mild insult by most people.
It really is a clash of cultures because the overwhelming message from the museum is that all sections of the community should be and feel included in the political system of the nation. The Tent Embassy wants to negotiate with the Crown on the basis of being sovereign indigenous nations.
There appears to be a certain section of rightwing politics in Australia that thinks First Nation people already have too much political power, which I think links back into various things including that the "conservative" view represents western civilisation and the "progressive" view suggests that it can't be too difficult to include people who are different.
Indeed they don't and I've had robust discussions with my uncle on Brexit, racism and all sorts of other issues without calling him names.
I've told he's been talking bollocks at times but that's a comment on what he says not an ad hominem attack.
You'd be the first to complain if a right-winger used offensive language towards someone on the left but somehow it's alright for leftwingers to use it against people on the right.
Besides it was counterproductive. Calling him a 'c**t' only reinforced his view that the left he used to support has moved away from him. He used to be a very lefty shop-steward.
I don't really give a shit about policing people's tone. Jacob Reese-Mogg was always tonally polite while saying and supporting awful things. The language used is not my issue.
It's a little early in your career here on the Ship to be sub-Hosting like this, and using it to dodge some of us. If any of the questions asked of you, or suggestions made that you haven't answered something adequately (which is true for at least a few of us here) were inappropriate, an actual Host would weigh-in.
You haven't specified anything at all about the harm you insist is ongoing. I'm just gonna say you're taking offense, meaning you're self-harming b/c of your mindset.
Racism on the left has a long history, him having previously been very left-wing does not absolve him of his racism.
A lot of areas in the UK have very poor SEND provision, and a lot of private schools do much better there. I can't fault any parent of disabled children opting for the private sector given the shit-show in the state sector, particularly given the issues with Academy schools and ableism.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sending your child to private school while also working to improve the state sector. I don't see why that should be seen as strange or hypocritical. I don't personally think that private schools are inherently bad, I think the problem comes from privately educated people being disproportionately favoured by certain areas of society. The solution is to improve state schools to the same level, especially in access to the arts.
Well, if you're so inclined, you can go to the appropriate forum and be up front about your personal experience with the matter. It just takes a little common courtesy to speak to people of a different experience than yourself.
If you really want to learn to be a political operative, these are useful skills to practice.
That's the bloody truth. That's a big reason why I start to hate the whole "progressive versus conservative" dynamic. A lot of us (not speaking for people of color) get ground up in the gears of that ideological dynamic.