David Silverman Vs the Mob

In what is becoming something of a pattern, Buzzfeed goes after a leading atheist with various allegations, and people in the atheist/skeptic community are surprisingly unskeptical when it comes to certain claims. There’s a bit more meat on these bones though.

Advertisements

Street Harassment and Proportionality

bravehearthawaii-group-anti-street-harassment-week-4-7-13

Cat calling gets marches and campaigns.

There’s yet another post about street harassment doing the rounds on Facebook. While, of course, this kind of thing is deplorable and upsetting I never stop at virtue signalling with a quick thumbs up or reblog. I can’t help but start thinking about the why’s and wherefores, the context in which this occurs. I can’t help but compare it to the situation men face and to ask myself whether the panic over this is justified and why things are so gendered around this stuff.

Let’s drop a few facts first to contextualise things then.

  • A random street rape is the least likely scenario for women to be sexually assaulted. Most such attacks are by people the victim knows.
  • Catcalls are unpleasant, but there’s plenty in life that’s unpleasant.
  • Men are roughly twice as likely as women (3.8 vs 2.1%) to suffer violence of any kind (Crime Survey for England and Wales) and when it comes to random street violence are half-again as likely as women (150%) as likely to suffer random street violence.
  • In those incidents, men are far more likely to end up dead or injured than women.
  • Men also suffer street abuse, it just doesn’t tend to be sexual. Just more like ‘Wanker!’, road rage, random, nasty insults, challenges and attempts at violence.

In our society men suffer worse and more frequent random violence, yet this only concerns us in very general terms about the level of crime overall. We do not consider that a gendered issue, even though it far outweighs violence against women. We obsess and concern ourselves with ‘Hey beautiful!’ but not so much about fifty year old men given a fatal shoeing for challenging teenagers smoking pot in their driveway.

So me, being me – and believe me, this causes me more pain than it should and I don’t recommend it – I have to ask why? Why do we care more about women’s momentary discomfort than men’s deaths and injuries? Why is it that when you bring this up, seemingly because it involves men, it’s instantly dismissed and mocked?

I ask myself why women have what appears – from a male perspective – to be an irrational and phobic, disproportionate sense of fear and why men do not have that same fear. Should women be this afraid? Should men be more afraid? The statistics would seem to suggest at the very least that women should be less afraid (but then again, maybe their actions through fear are WHY there’s such a divide in incidence).

Are we really going to waste time and money criminalising people for saying ‘Hey baby!’ especially when this will end up being heavily concentrated in poor and ethnic communities where such actions are more common? Worse, are we going to let this spread to the internet with loose and poorly worded ‘anti-harassment’ regulations and even laws? That’s what people seem to want.

There is sexism here, but it’s in our disproportionately big and one-sided response to women’s problems, however trivial they are (or seem) and our minimal response to men’s issues, which after 50+ years of political concern over women’s issues have been left unaddressed and allowed to fester.

A particularly stark example of this dichotomy relates to another arena, with reference more directly to sexual violence. Men and women suffer almost the same amount of domestic violence (60% of victims are women, 40% are men – Parity, and other studies) yet while there’s thousands upon thousands of places of shelter and aid for women, there are less than 100, nationwide, for men and men’s charities dealing with male victims have been defunded (Mankind Initiative).

Our compulsion as a society and as individuals to help women is commendable. However, it also infantalises women, treats them as weak and incapable. It is a sexism of its own. The ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ and it also hangs our society’s men out to dry.
Pointing this out, however calmly, however accurately, no matter the amount of data you present will only – ironically – get you abuse, wild, dismissing nonsense about ‘patriarchy’ conspiracy theories or the semantic atrocity that is the Orwellian misuse of the word ‘privilege’.

crime-scene-near-tescos-on-high-street

Shane Tunney being kicked to death gets police tape.

Unwanted attention is (or at least can be) bad, but if we have limited resources we have to practice some form of triage. What is more pressing, the much higher amount of violence and abuse that men face, or someone’s discomfort at being drunkenly asked for a blowjob?

Really. Honestly. Think. Put the same effort into thinking about this, contextually, as I have before you comment or answer.

I mean, seriously for once. What ABOUT the men?

Thanks.

Censorship, Justification, Youtube and Business Vs Individual Rights

6219961958_f51291fba0_oAlright, let’s do this as a blog, rather than a video as the internet is still playing up and it might be better to do this in this format.

Introduction

In the wake of the recent Youtube demonetisation scandal – a surprise to some, not to others – abrupt in its revelation and unexpected in its extent, a lot of my fellow sceptics, atheists and members of that broader community have reacted on two poles. One group, much like me, treats this as another example of creeping online censorship of social media. Another group seems to brush this off and to claim is isn’t censorship, disturbingly echoing many SJW arguments as they do so.

While some people in the first group may be overreacting, people in the second group are just flat out wrong. Some of this is down to not understanding the principle of free expression or the meaning of censorship. Some of it seems to be ideological, where free market, economic libertarianism seems to come into conflict with the principles of individual rights and freedoms and they seem unable to negotiate the clash between the two.

In large part I tend to blame the dominance of the American First Amendment over these kinds of discussions. It turns these arguments into legalistic and governmental ones, when the right to free expression is a universal human right, enshrined in but not deriving from documents like the US constitution, the United Nations declaration on human rights and many, many others.

The discussion and argument is far, far bigger than American law.

What is Censorship?

The Oxford English Dictionary is about as definitive a guide to the meaning of the English language as you can get, and defines censorship thus:

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

In other words, anything that reduces or eliminates expression, on any basis – legitimate or otherwise – is censorship. Anything. The argument is usually not whether something is censorship, but whether said censorship is justified.

The ACLU has a noteworthy, modern understanding of censorship and describes it thus:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period.

Freedom of expression is, meanwhile, perhaps best expressed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

To reiterate. Your right to free expression is that to hold and impart opinions without interference, through any media, regardless of frontiers. Clearly a great deal interferes with that, some justified, some not, but that’s the ideal. Anything that does interfere with that is censorship. That censorship can come from government but also from private groups, companies, individuals and even from oneself, either through free personal choice or under pressure and duress (it can be hard to disentangle the two).

When the government bans and prosecutes child pornography it is justified on the grounds of protection of children. When the government bans pornography created by and for consenting adults it is, arguably, not justified.

When a pressure group, such as those operated by former campaigner Mary Whitehouse tries to shut down ‘lewdness’ and ‘immoral content’ on television they’re largely unjustified, but are engaged in attempted censorship. When a pressure group has indisputable evidence that certain content can harm the development of children they may justifiably argue for censorship or constriction.¬†Pressure groups on campus no-platforming speakers are engaged in censorship. Again, anything that suppresses or prevents speech is censorship. The threats of violence from Islamic extremists against cartoonists, causing them to self-censor – again, censorship.

All of this is censorship.

The only good justifications for censorship are under the harm principle:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” – JS Mill, On Liberty.

Can we, then, say that what is going on at Youtube is censorship?

That it is a private company makes no difference here. Censorship does not require government involvement to be censorship. Youtube does censor certain content, but this has been deemed reasonable by most of the community (nudity etc is disallowed). I would disagree there too, but that’s a different argument. Youtube has not outright banned any additional content, so it’s not outright censorship, it has ‘merely’ removed monetisation on the basis of some rather opaque and vague criteria.

This loss of monetisation, which is tied to ‘controversial topics’, politics, news and other forms of content may not be outright censorship but it is ‘suppression’, refer back to the definition. Content that can’t make creators money will become less common, the livelihoods of people who produce Youtube content full time will be threatened. Certain forms of commentary and news coverage will be affected as will support organisations, charities, fiction of certain types, tutorials and more. ‘Controversial topics’ is particularly contentious, I’ve had perfectly lucid, explanatory videos on ‘Gamergate’ demonetised.

That people the sceptic/atheist/anti-SJW community have beef with have also been censored doesn’t make the problem less of an issue, it just means it’s affecting more people. That they’ve had their demonetisation reversed (Laci Green) while others have not does lend some weight to this being a political bias, or at least fear on Youtube’s part of bad publicity from some quarters and not others.

Whatever the specifics, yes it’s censorship as it is suppressing certain forms of expression.

Is it Justified?

It’s censorship, but since anything that suppresses or bans speech is censorship the question is whether it’s justified or not. So where’s the harm being done?

Ostensibly this censorship is being made at the behest of the advertisers, but why?

Youtube only benefits from more people using and watching their platform. It costs them very little to host any particular person’s content and the more there is and the more variety the more people are likely to watch. The more creators and the more content they put out and promote, the more to watch. It’s in Youtube’s interest to have the least amount of restriction possible.

Users do not have their experience improved by the censorship, they are harmed by it (less content, less entertainment). Some may say they’re harmed by seeing expression they don’t like, but the solution is simply not to watch it.

Creators are harmed directly by the censorship. Some might say they want it – there was a push against ‘roasting’ and other response videos recently, but again the solution is simply not to watch it.

Advertisers are supposedly the ones asking for this as it is ‘advertiser friendliness’ that is the excuse given. How could an advertiser be harmed here? The kinds of content being targeted are clearly popular and draw a lot of eyes, which is what the advertiser is paying for. This is not sponsorship, there is no direct link between the product and the content and while seeing adverts for Barbie showing next to ‘Uncle Anaconda’s Underage Trouser Power Hour’ might be amusing, nobody except the basest moron would associate the one with the other unless there was sponsorship. Advertisers already advertise around news programmes, edgy comedy shows and more on television. What’s the difference here, if there is any? None.

Nobody appears to gain from this and everybody is harmed – even the advertisers who end up with less exposure.

There’s no justification for it that holds up under scrutiny.

Are we then, those who protest, justified in seeking to exercise control over a privately owned media platform?

Youtube is not like an art gallery. It has – essentially – unlimited space to host content. A gallery could justify turning you away based on limited space or lack of talent or not fitting their remit. The cost/benefit is in favour of them. On Youtube however it costs them virtually nothing (per individual case) to host content and they gain. There’s not much of a defence there on economic or practical grounds.

Moral grounds? This becomes more tricky. If they don’t want certain kinds of content then to an extent that’s their prerogative. However, we live in interesting times. The public square is privately owned and the hard won freedoms we have when it comes to things like free expression, that protect us from the government, do not protect us – at least not in law – from private companies. This becomes an issue in the case of social media giants like Youtube, Twitter and Facebook because they now own the public square and their censorship has a massively deleterious effect.

There’s precedent for the state (acting as the will of the people) stepping in to protect people’s rights form private entities. Some of these are obvious – regulation on dumping waste, not being allowed to make false claims in advertising and so on, others are less obvious or more contentious. Is it right that we step in to protect a homosexual couple’s access to services for their weddings, or should we allow private businesses to be conducted according to their own conscience? What if they want to turn away blacks, or women? Is that OK?

This appears to be the sticking point for many, especially the economic libertarians, anarcho capitalists and so on. The abuse of power that comes in a wholly free market appears to be inevitable and this kind of censorship is an example of that – albeit a mild one. This is especially a problem when the company in question – such as Youtube – has such a de-facto monopoly.

This is where our argument and discussion should be occurring. Where individual and business rights collide, how monopoly status and the cheapness of digital storage interfaces with that.

Some Practical Solutions

1. First I suggest that anyone who runs into advertising on Youtube make a note of who is advertising and then contact them later. Express – politely – the issue with demonetisation and that blame is being placed on the advertisers. Tell them you prefer Youtube as a free speech platform and you do not want to support a company that suppresses free speech. If enough people do this to enough companies (explaining that advertising and content is divorced) then there may be some traction and a shift.

2. Give advertisers the freedom to advertise on ‘edgy’ content if they wish. Flag content as ‘limited monetisation’ if you wish, but let the advertisers choose if they want their adverts to run there or not, rather than simply demonetising. Many advertisers probably don’t care. Many would probably like to advertise next to very popular, controversial and topical content as it may fit their product profile better. Advertisers that don’t want to do so wouldn’t have to, advertisers that did would benefit, creators and viewers would continue to benefit from monetisation.

3. Allow Youtube Red to apply to the content you’re limiting. This would allow ‘edgy’ content to get money as if advertising were present, coming from the Red subscription. It would also encourage creators to encourage their followers to support Youtube Red, with a knock-on benefit for Youtube itself.

Conclusion

It is censorship. It’s not justifiable under the harm principle. Holding Youtube (and similar companies) to uphold free expression is a controversial and arguable point – an interesting discussion to have – but there were other ways to deal with this problem, and better ways than springing it on people.

People need to understand that censorship is more than governmental. That free speech is not limited to the US constitution. That the media landscape has changed and that rights and legislation need to catch up.

Pax.

How Free Speech was Actually Threatened

14117805_10154249656880289_4020736037780061722_n

Political comics aren’t just limited to newspapers. You also find them online, related to various issues. This one’s been doing the rounds lately and while all such political cartoons are simplistic, this one is particularly terrible. I don’t think I’ve seen one that misrepresented the issue of free speech so badly since the somewhat notorious XKCD one. That was a shame, as XKCD normally has something of a level head. This one, however, is just ludicrous.

It is, of course, alluding to various online spats from Gamergate to ‘Ghostbros’ to the regular Hugo Awards side show, but it utterly misrepresents.

Panel 1: Title – Ironically, it may well turn out to be accurate rather than sarcastic.

Panel 2: The idea that feminism attacks free speech is meant to be seen as ridiculous, but it does – indeed – happen. There are any number of examples from building moral panics about video games (now the idea is that they cause ‘sexism’ rather than ‘violence’) to collusion with government to ban forms of pornography (Gail Dines and the UK kink porn production ban) to No-Platforming and Safe Spaces. It’s not just limited to feminism, but it is found across a swathe of people who – ironically and laughably – consider themselves progressive even as they attack people’s free expression, sex lives and other fundamental human freedoms they should be fighting for.

Panel 3: Case in point. ‘Calling out sexism in video games’ doesn’t mean that there is sexism and ‘criticism’, coming from the likes of Anita Sarkeesian or Jonathan McIntosh is not ‘criticism’ in the sense most people would understand it. This is not “the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work,” or even¬†“the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.”¬†This is claiming that these things do harm and should not exist. It is not presented as a matter of opinion or a disagreement that can be discussed, but something that ‘is’, and something that is ‘bad’. It is a bald assertion and any attempt to discuss, debunk or otherwise counter that claim is treated as confirmation of that claim and as a crime or violence in and of itself.

So ‘feminist criticism’ is, indeed, a threat to free expression because it’s not criticism, and it presents calls to action to change, remove and to force artistic works and other expression to change or be removed. If you think censorship is limited to governmental action, this kind of ‘criticism’ works there too, but even so, the ACLU has a fairly up to date definition which includes:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

This isn’t differences of opinion. They are presented as facts, beyond question and to reiterate – since its important – any rebuttal is treated as confirmation and as an ‘attack’ of its own.

It’s also important to note for later that these kinds of ‘critics’ seem genuinely incapable of telling the difference between thought and action. So they will see a cultural artefact that includes – say – violence against women as violence against women (and approving of and encouraging it). This also works in reverse as we saw in the Charlie Hebdo shootings. It allowed many people – even artists and writers – to refuse to commemorate and support Charlie Hebdo because they could not see a meaningful difference between Charlie Hebdo’s criticism of Islam and the ’emotional pain’ it caused, and the violent, actual, physical backlash they suffered.

Panel 4 & Panel 5: One of the great things about social media is that it empowers people to criticise, comment and debunk. This is, of course, not popular in some quarters which is why many sites of various kinds, but tending to have common ideological slants, have taken to removing comments sections or even up and down votes. This stifles the ability of people to point out problems in the assertions directly and such ‘fighting back’ is often conflated with the trolling etc that goes on, making a handy excuse to dismiss, deflect or drown out criticism. The irony here of course is in ‘critics’ lashing out at things people love and then recoiling in terror when they get the same kind of treatment in return. When their ideas are picked apart and tested – as they should be.

Panel 6: Here we see the conflation of criticism and trolls. Anyone and everyone who posts a controversial opinion of any sort online will get blowback and everyone gets trolled. Some people seem to advertise their soft-spots to trolls though, and yet still act surprised when they get attacked on it. A fat acceptance activist will be attacked for their weight, a feminist will receive trolling masquerading as misogyny, black people will receive trolling masquerading as racism. Trolls are not sincere, that’s the definition of a troll – someone who says something horrific or controversial simply to get a response. There are genuine crazies as well, of course, but – again – what happens is that all criticism and rebuttal gets lumped in with the trolls, and the trolls treated as sincere.

Panel 7-8: Nobody is being actively silenced here. They are deciding for themselves to stop speaking. All they have had is disagreement, sometimes strident, online from people they have insulted and tried to censor. The people coming at them have no ‘institutional power’ to do so, while in the reverse you will often find people going to authorities (see earlier) or abusing site rules, DMCA rules etc to silence people. In this instance there is no censorship going on. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone amongst the enemies of these ‘critics’ who advocates that they should not be allowed to speak or present their views. Rather they’re happy to have a free exchange of views, a ‘marketplace of ideas’. This is a very real and important difference. If they truly believed in their ‘criticisms’ they should be willing and able to stand by them, argue for them in the teeth of criticism. That instead they run, hide and attempt – again – to censor dissent suggests that their ideas are indefensible.

Panel 9: Indeed they did. They didn’t silence anyone, they stood up against people who attacked them and forced them to retreat. To any rational and reasonable onlooker who genuinely understands the terms and the differentiations, this is a victory for free expression – just couched in sarcastic terms by someone who knows nothing about it.

#MarchForEurope – Reflections on the March

13597538_555442654661616_25194694_n

This sign speaks to me.

On Saturday I travelled up to London to participate in the first protest I’ve physically turned up to since the 90s. A reflection of how important I think the EU issue is. I was not the only person to ‘come out of retirement’ for this protest. A lot of my fellow, jaded Generation X compatriots also seem to have found their outrage and to have made the trip as well. A reflection – I think – of how important the Brexit deceit and stupidity has been and the threat it presents to so many people – not just in Britain.

It was a weird experience. By nature I’m just not a joiner and I intensely distrust emotion and groupthink. I am wary of the loss of individuality in a crowd – and I get claustrophobic in large groups. To be part of a crowd of 50,000 or more people marching on Parliament was, then, weird.

Being aware of it helped. Steadfastly refusing to go along with the chants, considering myself an observer as much as a participant all helped me keep a little bit aloof, which I think was a good thing.

13473382_1079018838801927_1763810022_n

This was the first inkling I got of how big the protest really was.

Overall the protest was amazing. It was chilled out, hugely diverse in who was attending (in the proper meaning of diversity). There were old, young, wealthy hoorays in cravats and disillusioned punks. There were a lot of people who had travelled up, a lot of kids, a lot of international couples. There was a contingent of beautiful South Asian women in their finest saris. There were hipsters, kinksters, old hippies, young hippies, middle-aged mums, scientists, teachers and all points in between.

There were bad moments though. The classism I’ve talked about reared its ugly head in several discussions that people were having around me on the march. It’s disappointing to see people succumb to the same biases and prejudices they complain about in others but just as the accusations of racism and xenophobia towards Leave have a kernel of truth to them, so do the accusations of classism and arrogance levelled at Remain. Of course, there’s also classism in the Leave camp of the ‘Oh dear, poor Tarquin, mummy might not be able to leave you that cottage in France’ variety.

While many in the Leave camp seem to be doing their damnedest to convince me that they are – as a whole – racist, xenophobic, paranoid conspiracy theorists or worse I’m desperately trying not to succumb to the temptation to write them all off, just as I hope people in the Leave camp will resist the temptation to write off Remainers in such a way.

13557130_544070502462556_200033014_n

Rain. Pfft. We’re British!

I am discovering – the disadvantage of a politics and history education and a lifelong interest in this stuff – that many of the more nuanced Leave arguments are rooted in ignorance. Ignorance of the EU political process, ignorance of the UK political process, overblown paranoia about esoterica like an EU army, Turkey joining, full federal state joining and so on. That’s even, perhaps, a bit more shocking to me than the more blatant lies about immigration and the NHS.

Still, on the march were also plenty of poorer people who understood that EU investment was the only thing standing between them and even nastier Tory-led austerity. While the fractures are as I’ve outlined in previous posts, they all blur at the edges. In conversation we also found another factor in that divide. Digital literacy and access against a lack thereof. Many of us who are or have been ‘switched on’, who conduct business and friendships on the internet beyond Facebook and people we used to know at school do not see national borders or policies – or even culture – in the same way less switched on people do. To us these borders are a meaningless annoyance. An obstacle. People meet, do business, fall in love across these national boundaries that mean so much to nationalists, but nothing – save frustration – to digital settlers and natives.

13584298_297097653956058_867739609_n

Omniwombles

At any rate, it was good to meet like-minded people and not to feel alone and it reiterated to me my assertion that single-cause protests are so much better. There were people on this march I would not have agreed with about almost anything else. There were toffs from The City concerned about the future of banking and the markets, who I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire otherwise. There were stereotypical ‘Trigglypuff’ types – problem glasses and all – who are my natural enemy on many social and cultural matters, but we were all united on this one issue. The opposite of the mistake that destroyed Occupy.

Overall I’m glad I went. I still contend that protests, petitions and so on are largely pointless. We live in a world that makes the occasional pretence of democracy but really isn’t. Despite the closeness of the vote, despite the damage to our nation, to Europe and the world, despite the lies of the campaign rendering it undemocratic, despite all of this we’re unlikely to see a re-vote and there are no leaders in Parliament to do the right thing and vote it down. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that pressure will preserve at least some of the good aspects of EU membership – such as free movement.

It’s still worth protesting, writing and signing petitions on the hope of that. Perhaps a popular enough movement will encourage more of these spineless career politicians to take a gamble.

For my part, I think we desperately need to teach critical thinking and civics in schools, and we need legislation to prevent such blatant lying in political campaigns. Things that Advertising Standards would never allow for products.

Pax

x

13549503_525281837674153_1169207180_n

The amount of kids and young people was really inspiring. It IS their future we’re fucking up.

Dark Days Ahead

ClzMCDvXIAA9QhS

A scene from Britain today, not the 1980s.

Against all odds I got back a bit of defiant spirit last night and tried to think of how we can make any sort of progress or preserve some of the progress that had been made over the last forty years.

Sadly, thinking about it just made me more depressed.

Things look pretty bloody bleak for the near future and the people worst affected are going to be the poorest and most vulnerable. All that EU funding for deprived areas is going to vanish and if you think our (already vanished) savings from not contributing to the EU will be redirected that way I have a bridge to sell you.

The worst wing of the Tory party is likely to sail into power following Cameron’s resignation, very likely with Boris at the helm (barring the exit chickens coming home to roost rather quickly). That’s going to me super-double-turbo austerity and a rolling back of workers and human rights legislation.

Even if there’s a general election, the combination of gerrymandering, Brexit-fallout nationalism and Labour civil war (not to mention Liberal irrelevance) is likely to mean another Tory victory and likely a stronger one.

The NHS is under threat as never before. The economy is going to be uncertain – and fucked – for years.

It’s hard to see any silver lining.

All we can really hope to do is to fight to maintain the ground we currently have and in the current situation that stands little chance of success. It would take Poll Tax Riot era unrest to turn things around and that seems massively unlikely no matter how bad things get. The era of protest having an effect seems to have passed.

Perhaps we can’t hope to affect anything in the immediate future and part of the reason for that are the problems on the (broadest church) left.

While there has been racism and xenophobia on the Leave side and while a lot of people appear to have voted leave because of ignorance (in the non-pejorative sense, they just didn’t really know anything about the EU or the fallout) or because of false promises and lies (350m for the NHS, immigration control, ‘the EU isn’t democratic) I think the fault can be laid much more at the feet of the Regressive Left itself.

Many of the Leave side were not and are not racist or xenophobic. They have had legitimate concerns about their access to public services. They have legitimate concerns about Islamism, about work, about council housing, about access to the NHS. It isn’t racism so much as resentment, fear and hardship. The benefits of the EU membership were not made obvious to the people who benefited the most – as has become apparent as areas that strongly voted Leave now come begging for replacement money.

Much of the Remain camp – who tossed around insults rather than arguments have continued to do so in the wake of the referendum, as though carrying on doing the same thing would work. People have increasingly become pissed off – and even immune – to insults that portray their legitimate concerns as racist, sexist, xenophobia.

This Regressive Left bullshit has to end. This vote has made it obvious where the fractures and problems in society are and they lie in wealth, class and the uneven distribution of services and wellbeing. This is a legacy of Thatcher gutting social housing, the deliberate undermining of the NHS and all the other inequalities in our system. The smug remnants of the Middle Class are fighting on relatively petty issues that pale into insignificance compared to these massive cultural divisions and have alienated the base they need to activate to get these changes in the process. When you can’t get work or access to a doctor or dentist, when you’re relying on food banks to eat, these more esoteric concerns are meaningless.

A society can only be so liberal and tolerant as it can afford.

I’m much more frustrated with my own political ‘side’ than I am with the racist opportunists and even the softer right-wing that has re-channelled hardship into hatred and fear so they don’t have to deal with it. The sneering Guardianistas did a lot of damage looking down on people and with wealth disparity so high in this country you simply can’t afford to do that.

The left needs to cant back to dealing with the primary source of inequality – wealth.

  • Basic income.
  • Helping small businesses, start-ups, part-timers and micro-businesses.
  • Hand-Ups.
  • Wealth redistribution.
  • Economic diversification
  • Education and leadership rather than popularism.
  • Commitments to science, pragmatism and modernity.

I can’t see it happening though. Maybe there’ll be a split in the Labour party, but for all Corbyn has acted with muted class this referendum it would be a split between the Regressive Left and ‘Blue Labour’ – the Blairites. Not the split we need.

We also need societal reform in the media and in education. That is also massively unlikely to occur.

We have to fix the left/liberal side of politics before we can even attempt to fix anything else.