Hacker News Reader

Comment by _mhr_ | Hacker News Reader

Could you describe what you perceive to be the difference between leftism and liberalism?

A leftist violates general democratic principles in the fight against a particular injustice.

And do the people you apply this label to agree that they're "violating general democratic principles"? Seems unlikely, and also seems unlikely to generate a good discussion.

They're openly hostile to both free speech and the presumption of innocence as values and general practices (less opposed to the technical Constitutional restraints on the state, for now).

I don't know about "general democratic principles" but I would include these as ideas valued by liberalism and not by leftism.

Just starting with the first part of what you said, I see a big disagreement about what "free speech" is. If you say something offensive, and a billion people speak back that you're being offensive, that's also free speech.

Sure. The fissure is over whether a disagreeable idea or speaker should be engaged and defeated on rational grounds, or excluded from the premises by whatever means necessary. Last generation's liberal professors value the exercise for its own sake. Today's leftist students think it's an abomination that they're allowed into the institution at all.

That's not what I see happening, but sure, you can accuse other people of that if you like.

Didn't that exact scenario happen at like Berkeley? I thought Ann Coulter or someone what prevented from speaking...maybe it was someone else

Well, there were 2 things that happened at Berkeley. One was a huge, peaceful counter-demonstration (free speech), another was a small number of violent people. I find it hard to believe that closeparen intended to only label the second group "leftist". But I could be wrong about that.

Fortunately, Ann Coulter or someone has plenty of outlets for her speech. And we've come a long way from Governor Ronald Reagan ordering UC Berkeley to cancel speakers because he didn't like what they had to say.

It’s not even remotely a departure from liberal values to protest outside. It is to work towards disrupting/overpowering the event so that it can’t continue, or to be totally unconcerned that others are doing so because “it’s a small group” or “they have plenty of other outlets” as long as the speaker is from the wrong side.

How have we “come a long way” from Reagan doing it? No-platforming actions don’t require the backing of a democratic majority. A few self-righteous people get going and no one wants to burn political capital objecting. Making the disinvitation button available to a wider population isn’t progress.

> The fissure is over whether a disagreeable idea or speaker should be engaged and defeated on rational grounds, or excluded from the premises by whatever means necessary. Last generation's liberal professors value the exercise for its own sake. Today's leftist students think it's an abomination that they're allowed into the institution at all.

> That's not what I see happening, but sure, you can accuse other people of that if you like.

I've seen videos of it happening. Basically a speaker is invited to give a talk, but people who disagree with her crowd the auditorium and scream to prevent the talk from being given. The intention is not to "engage [or] defeat on rational grounds," but to shut down and exclude.

A lot of the people who have this done to them are in fact disagreeable, but that doesn't make the reaction less illiberal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com