In reply to David Martin:
> Really? You really need to get on Facebook. All the talk about hate speech and bullying on the internet is aimed at the right, but it's just as prevalent from the left.
I don't know how you claim to have an overview of everything on facebook. I don't know much about it, but I know you don't browse through the whole thing! I've also got no idea why you think I should go on there (although actually I do have a profile, but it's just so people can message me for climbing in the Lakes, I don't display edited highlights from my life and ask vague acquaintances from the periphery of my social network to comment on whether they like it or not).
So from what I hear talked about, people from both the left and the right post vitriolic stuff about people they don't like. I wouldn't deny for a second that people with left wing as well as right wing politics can be bigoted and use horrible language to make personal insults. I've never suggested otherwise, but it seems you're attacking this straw man all the same. So just to be even clearer, yes, I am perfectly aware that people on social media with left wing views post horrible, bigoted stuff.
But no, I don't agree at all, in any way, for a second, that it's a fair generalisation that "the left" is characterised by this type of bigotry.
The problem for "the right" - by which I mean all people who support right wing politics (e.g. by voting conservative, choosing to get their news and commentary from right-wing sources, etc) is *not* that they're all bigots. (Yes, believe it or not, I can be both left-wing and not think all Tories are bigots! How incredible, I must be the only one! Everyone else on "the left" thinks all Tories are bigots...in fact, I'm probably lying when I say that aren't I? I must be since what it means to be left wing is just about hating Tories, isn't it?). The problem is that right-wing politics has a history of bigotry: the Thatcher government was explicitly homophobic, and less explicitly racist (references here are Section 28 and Thatcher's views on the ANC). Conservatism has in the past sought to conserve a world that did not offer equal rights. It isn't true today that the Tory party push racist and homophobic policies - but David Cameron had a job on his hands of cleaning up the act of the party in this respect.
I'll say it again, just in case it's not clear: I don't think that all Tories are bigots. But the position of the Tory party, whose raison d'etre is to represent the right, is that it *was* bigoted in the last century, but now it has changed. Opponents of the Tory party are not making up out of thin air these associations with bigotry, they're saying "you haven't really changed". Largely, I'm sure it has (i.e. some members have died and been replaced by younger people, while others have learnt to keep their mouths shut on certain topics). But of course there is some residual bigotry, all of which explains the stereotype of the racist, posh old Tory that Morris' faux pas so hilariously brought to life.
> This kind of stuff is rife in universities too. I've watched students daub "Sack the bitch" on the walls of our university corridors, cheered on by their supporters, union reps and their lefty activists. If I referred to any woman as a "bitch" do you think they would cheer me? The double-standard is literally there, in black paint and capital letters.
I've called Theresay May a silly bitch countless times on here. I do it all the time. I hate the stupid bitch, because of her abysmal policies, her lack of integrity, her hunger for power, her total absence of talent, and most of all for the consequence of her awful decisions and ideas on the people of this country. I don't consider that there is any hypocrisy in me calling her a bitch. I've never said that I think the word "bitch" is an unacceptable word to use about a woman that you hate because of the appalling things she does to damage millions of people's lives. I don't have a problem with this word, I've never said to anyone that I do, and I don't really understand what the problem is. If she was a bloke, I would use the word "wanker" instead. Using "wanker" for a woman has a kind of amusing ring to it, but it's not quite right, so I would use "bitch". "Bitch" is also pretty strong, more so than "wanker".
> You seem to view the left as intrinsical without sin, with any negative outcomes simply the results of arseholes.
Strawman garbage. I believe in left-wing political ideas, I don't think that "the left" (who do you mean?) are "without sin" and have never implied this. Responding to strawman accusations is tedious.
> Whereas the right, by virtue of its policies, is inherently wrong.
Yes, I believe that "the right" - by which I mean all people who support right wing politics (e.g. by voting conservative, choosing to get their news and commentary from right-wing sources, etc) -are wrong because the policies they push forward have bad outcomes for people who have the least control in society but protect those who have the most.
> That isn't really surprising as the left does have an overblown sense of self-assuredness. It repeatedly tells itself, and those opposed to it, that it represents the masses - the many and not the few, the voiceless, the oppressed, etc. It is therefore by default, correct in its vision and actions.
This is a ludicrous argument. Of course people on the left think that they're right (correct)! And of course people on the right (wing) think that they're right (correct)! The trouble for the right is that they have recently lost a big moral argument on the treatment of minorities and had to reform, so they're very touchy about the moral implications of being right-wing - this is the association with past bigotry I described above, and it puts the right on the back foot. In decades gone by, the right would have been able to appeal to a higher moral authority - the church - which it has now lost. This is why you're telling me how overblown and self-assured the left are, they fought the battles for equal rights and won them; and more currently, the Tories took away benefits from disabled people to claw back a deficit created by bankers. A conservative voter needs to square up to these realities and not just say accuse the left of self-righteousness as a way to deflect the moral questions being asked. This isn't to say that the left are "without sin" - I can't vote Labour after Iraq, and voting Lib Dem after the NHS reforms under the coalition is problematic.
> Unfortunately plenty of people, many of whom who have experienced life under leftist regimes, rightly point to the elements inherent in the very nature of leftism that stifles rights, freedom and individual welfare - from Mao, Pot and Stalin to Chavez and Castro. The response of the left to these criticisms is seldom "Yes, we screwed up/took it too far/lost balance", but more usually "Ahh, that wasn't proper leftism - nothing to do with us, not our fault" or "The right wing forced us to do it" - despite leftist regimes so often headed in that same direction. That is, the left isn't the problem, just a bunch of arseholes screwed it up.
I wouldn't vote for the policies of these regimes. But the idea that I shouldn't vote for the Green Party because of some association on the political spectrum with them is totally absurd and I don't consider it to be a serious argument.