Venstresiden er ved å undergrave seg selv fordi den ikke tolererer andre meninger, skriver Tim Lott i Guardian. Han sier kløftene er ved å bli dypere og nærme seg det uoverstigelige. Det gjør ham nedslått.

Lott er fullblods leftist. Han er for alle de gode sakene som har preget venstresiden. Men så er det nyanser og meningsforskjeller på noen viktige punkt, og det tåles ikke.

To temaer er sensitive: islam og ytringsfrihet. Han mener også ordet politisk korrekthet har noe for seg. Det ville landet ham i trøbbel også i Norge.

I am not convinced jihadists have “nothing to do” with Islam – although this strikes me as a largely theological and semantic point. I am wary of even moderate Islam for the same reason I am wary of even moderate Christianity: because I am an atheist and a humanist and a social liberal, and consider most religions to be counter-rational and socially conservative. To acknowledge that grooming gangs and FGM and tendencies towards homophobia and gender oppression have arisen out of some of the matrices of Muslim practices and belief systems adds to my unease.

I believe more in free speech than I do in “safe spaces” in universities. I do not think people with unpleasant opinions should be prosecuted, or even denied a platform, unless they directly threaten to incite violence or lawbreaking. I do not think “political correctness” is a myth – although I would prefer the term groupthink – but that it is a system of thought that has a real impact on public policy and institutional behaviour.

Lott har forkjærlighet for England, fremfor Storbritannia. Han er en little Englander. Det gjør ham suspekt. Han har også sans for britisk humor og tradisjon. Ikke nødvendigvis imperiet. Igjen suspekt.

My stance on these issues makes some people in my “tribe” very angry. It is the anger of the pure believer towards the apostate.

Her dukker ordet frafall opp. Pussig. Sosialistene og venstresiden har tradisjone for å se ublidt på avvikere. Finnes det et sammenfall mellom sosialister og islamister? Har de begge problemer med å tolerere avvik?

Lott liker bladet Spiked. Det må han skjule. Han føler han har en skitten, liten hemmelighet. Venstresiden spiller på folks dårlige samvittighet. Han sier sosialistene benytter seg av noe han kaller assumption creep: Mener du noe, vet de hva du mener om andre ting. Da kan de plassere deg.

…. feels like dirty little secret. But that’s what the mainstream left specialises in: generating shame.

This shame comes from the phenomenon of what I call assumption creep – the assumption that if you believe one thing you probably believe another thing, which you are hiding. If you believe women behave differently in the real world from men, whether for cultural or biological reasons, you also (secretly) believe women are more suited for domestic life than careers.

Venstresiden har alltid praktisert disse vannskillene, eller prøvestenene: Hva du mener om visse nøkkelord, sier dem hvem du er. Hvis du avviker kan de utlede en hel masse om deg.

Den vedtatte sannhet at islam ikke har noe med terror å gjøre, setter mange mennesker under press. De må trosse sin egen fornuft og bli tause.

That if you believe religion, including Islam, is the source of much conflict in the world you also (secretly) believe all Muslims are potential terrorists and you (secretly) dislike immigrants to boot. That if you have a particular attachment to your country, defined as England rather than Britain, you keep a St George’s flag and a knuckle-duster in the back of your drawer. These supposed secret assumptions are the primary source of censure from leftwing critics of the “paradoxical voice” – which is the term I use to describe the thinking of “non-pure” leftwing thinkers.

Man trekker opp stigen fra en reell debatt.

Assumption creep may be accurate in some cases. We all know about the “I’m not a racist, but … ” arguments. But more often than not, it simply isn’t true. To insist otherwise is lazy. It’s just a way of making sure people who have opinions contrary to your own stay safely in their boxes – the boxes marked “bad people”. To actually address the issues is thus avoided, because who needs to debate with a bad person? It’s enough just to condemn them.

 Slike sekkebetegnelser er omtrent som å utstyre folk med merkelapper: Spedalsk.

Dessverre er det ikke ens motstandere, men ens venner som kaster stener.

Those who identify with the “paradoxical voice” self-censor because they know they are going to get rocks thrown at them – not by their enemies but by their friends. That’s not only a bad feeling; it’s a tendency that’s bad for democracy, for politics, and the wider movement we call the left.

Lott er fremdeles troende nok til å mene at venstresiden er verdens eneste håp. Det står i motsetning til det han selv beskriver.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/mainstream-left-silencing-sympathetic-voices