>what I'd call the 'performative left' and the 'real/old school left'

What you're referring to are known more commonly as Modern Liberalism and Classical Liberalism, respectively.

Modern Liberalism is, well, the Left: Control of speech, adherence of expression, safe spaces, equal results rather than equal opportunity, wealth redistribution, controlled markets, etc.

Classical Liberalism is liberalism as it used to mean originally: Free speech, free expression, free markets, equal opportunity, individual responsibility, etc.

It probably doesn't need to be said that Classical Liberalism is almost never associated with the Left.

Also remember: The word "liberal" and name "liberalism" are derived from the Latin word "liber", from which we also get words such as "liberty". Liberalism is about freedom, something that the Left staunchly argues against.

As a non-American calling liberalism 'left' is so weird. I grew up with the word liberal being a slur for right-winger. But even in an US context painting it as classic vs modern liberalism is wrong. Chomsky is definitely not a liberal, and the US obsession of collapsing every position to the left of conservatism into liberalism is dangerously reductive, and limits the answers for political questions immensely.

As an American I also find it weird. There’s multiple axes getting reduced to just one. It’s impossible to have any proper discussions about political positions of people when you’re collapsing it down and then leaving it up to the reader to decide how they want to split it back out in their heads.

I said I am not American for a reason, I am also familiar with my terms and what you write is somewhat a modern, American-centric distortion of terms as well. You listed what seem like talking points in the so called 'culture war' that I am not interested in fighting as it is very much an American phenomenon, (with some spillover) that in the end doesn't serve interests of anyone but the few profiting off of being spokepersons for one side or the other.

It's very much a modern distortion that leftism doesn't stand for free speech and that classical liberals, (in your context, I understand them to mean right-leaning libertarians), are somehow the only ones that do.

The left intellectuals I am familiar with are very much pro free speech, equal opportunity, (not outcome etc). As for markets, I very much question if such a thing as a free market could ever truly exist, (even without state interference), and if it's such a good thing but that's neither here nor there.

Point is, the left is very diverse, not a single box you can put everything you don't like the sound of in, label it 'the left' and be done with it. Same thing as not everyone on the right being a 'Nazi' if you will.

I wouldn’t have grouped Chomsky in with them though.

If you read the rest of his comment, you’d see that’s not what he was talking about at all.

Despite its etymology, liberalism is not primarily about freedom, it is about individualism. This is what connects "classical" and "modern" liberalism. Freedoms and so-called "human rights" shake out of this foundational idea that the individual is sovereign.

No, I don’t think the analogy works.

People have a freedom of who they associate with and do business with:

Boycott is when you decide not to spend your money someplace because you don’t agree with them. You’re exercising your freedom of association.

Cancellation is when a 3rd party demands that a employee/employer sever their relationship because the 3rd party disapproves of the employee. Here, a 3rd party is imposing on two other parties’ freedom of association.

Also, the substance of the speech is quite different:

- “You are wrong, and here are the reasons why” is debate.

- “You are wrong, and you should become unemployable” is cancellation. Cancellation is technically speech, but it is speech that is focused on imposing a high cost on other speech. Talk about the “paradox of intolerance” argument that the modern left loves to use.

Cancel culture is not boycotting. At least not what most people consider boycotting. Boycotting usually there's to not giving money to a company to try to get the company to change their ways (yes you could argue it is a way to try and cancel the company) cancel culture is trying to get someone fired, or get their event, contact, whatever cancelled. Because you don't like them. It isn't the same thing. Boycotting is telling people "please don't prize company x" while cancellation is going above that person and asking them to remove the person. Totally different concepts. And it is mean and nasty, it is basically giving someone a death sentence for something they may not have even done. And of course you have every right to ask for someone to be cancelled. But you should use that right judicially. And make sure the punishment fits the crime.

Cancel culture == swatting. Same thing, abusing the system to get what they see as justice. Heavy cancellation usually involves stretching the truth or outright lies; an employer is very likely to drop a (male) employee based on an anonymous sexual assault tip for example, even if it turns out to be unsubstantiated depending on how high profile the employee/business is sometimes they'd rather play it safe & fire them anyway.

As easy as it is for one of the many Indian scam centers to take your grandmothers money, it is just as easy for a wide-eyed innocent figure to tell you lies about someone and have you believe them. I don't think most people realise how many biases we all carry.

I dont think it's so much that the right likes them more. I think it's mainly that the non performative left can basically only really get noticed by appearing on, say, PressTV or RT.

They dont tend to own or control TV stations and the people who do control popular "left" media megaphones trend neoliberal and are overtly hostile towards them.

Hence why there's no hike in the minimum wage or single payer healthcare still but you can pick your pronouns at work now :/

I think your example inadvertently proves why there is no left representation in America at all. Picking pronouns isn't some policy that was signed into law, it's just that the far right wants to make it illegal. The difference lies in the political figures touted as "left" in America have no left leaning policies, just watered down versions of the American right's agenda.

Getting the working class to fight over performative wedge issues to divide and disempower them is entirely deliberate.

That is, until Russian bots grab $500,000 of Facebook ads and a crowbar and join in the fun.

Ideally the growing resentment against capitalism and push for strong unions takes off even further. Blaming whatever minority is at best a band-aid on the gaping holes in the ruling class's narrative.

The right does not want to make the picking of pronouns illegal. Where did you get that? Nobody cares what annyone identifies as.

The right’s position is that you are free to identify however you wish, but you still have to abide by certain things based on your biological birth when it directly affects other people.

Right or wrong, don’t create a straw man.

I have a large conservative circle. That isn't their stance. They do not want trans people to exist at all.

What do you mean by they don't want trans people to exist at all? Same way trans people do not want conservatives to exist at all, or something more sinister? Because I have many conservative friends and they may not agree with different life choices, but that doesn't mean they won't tolerate it.

If you have a circle of people who want to eradicate trans people, I would not label them as conservatives first, they are psychopaths and I would not let them in my circle.

If you are not familiar with the local/state laws going into effect which legislate official identification and presentation in ways that impact trans people, they're particularly easy to Google. The differences between the positions of cannot exist in public view and cannot exist at all are insignificant in practice.

Shifting the goalpost.

No. In practice they are the same.

Yes. They are not the same, and you know this. These social pressure tactics do little but turn people against your cause at this point. The difference is in intent. While it is possible they look the same from the outside, one intends to protect what they love, while the other intends to hurt what it hates.

Making these people out to be the same serves to turn people who might be convinced to help you into your worst enemies instead. No one likes being made out to be a bad person simply for seeking to protect what is important to them. The two are not the same, and too many people screeching that they are, and that conservatives all hate trans people is the issue in the first place. It's weird.

Can you restate? Are you saying "cannot exist in public view" and "cannot exist in practice" are not really the same?

Which one intends to protect what they love, and what is "what they love?"

> conservatives all hate trans people

Not all conservatives, but lots of them don't want trans people to exist.

I'm saying that they have different motivations behind their views, and should therefore be argued against in different ways. Lumping them together like that is not helpful, it is shameful.

I know all about not being allowed to exist, just for being who you are, trust me, I do. I also know a lot about convincing people to LET you exist, rather than choosing between crushing your enemy, subjugating yourself to them, or running away. There is usually a better way. That seems to have been forgotten in modern days, but it certainly still exists.

It starts with following the site guidelines of arguing in good faith and assuming the best out of your opponents. In your view, "cannot exist in public view" and "cannot exist in practice" are one and the same. In their view it is not.

What you are doing is ASSERTING your reality over someone else. That's not a very nice thing to do, whether you're right or not. You WILL have pushback. If you want to convince people of the veracity of your views, you cannot hold that pushback against them. Certainly react to it, certainly defend yourself, but don't hold a grudge against people just for daring to fight you in the first place.

They might be wrong and you might be wrong. In this case, I'm inclined to agree with your view here, but that doesn't mean that people who don't are bad people. Just misguided.

If you want people to show compassion for you and your plight, start by showing compassion for them and theirs. Anything else is quite frankly a waste of time.

I'm not familiar with that, give me a link or Google search term to use so I can see for myself.

Easy to search for "anti-trans laws US" and do your research here.

Newsflash, trans people have always been a thing. Since like, recorded history. Some people in the US just decided to start caring about this now.

Thanks for asking me to clarify. I mean it in the literal sense: they want a world without trans people. I'm not interested really in getting into my subjective views on the harm I believe that leads to, but Ill answer and say no, I don't believe very many people want direct violence against trans people.

I don't know if you can group trans people into a political category where you can say they all don't want conservatives to exist??? I literally know trans conservatives who voted for trump (you'd not be able to tell they are trans).

> they may not agree with different life choices

I don't know what you intended, but phrasing it that way is a literal denial of the existence of trans people. Transitioning is a realization of who the person has always been, not a "life choice" to suddenly be someone different.

Denying the existence of something and not wanting something to exist are not exactly the same thing, but there is a lot of overlap. Again, I don't know what you intended, but many people pointedly use the word "choice" around this topic. Your phrase would be more accurate if it said "they may not agree with different life experiences" or "they may not agree with different lived realities". Those are decidedly more cutting than the phrasing you used.

Phrasing it the way you are is a literal denial of the existence of conservative people, because having conservative viewpoints is a realization of who the person has always been, not a life choice.

The person has always been a trans person. Like a gay person has always been gay. If conservatives don't believe that, them being wrong isn't a denial that conservatives exist.

So do I but I would not characterize the conservative position on trans individuals that way at all.

I think the conservative opposition is more directed at how early the modern left wants to introduce the concept to children. Primarily in schools and the desire by some on the modern left for educators to have private conversations about the topic with their children without the parent’s knowledge. Also, the notion of government funding any transitional medical procedure is opposed, but that is less a bias agains Trans individuals and more a standard conservative position on any sort of elective medical procedure receiving public funds.

There is not a single conservative that I know who cares one iota what a trans adult does, identifies as, or believes about themselves as long as the trans individual isn’t using taxpayer money to make the transition.

The laws being brought into effect by The Party beg to differ. They forbid the use of terms of "gender identity" among others. This is pretty obviously only being enforced against trans individuals. They also have restricted access to gender affirming healthcare even in the private sector.

>They forbid the use of the terms gender identity among others

Please cite the laws where this term is legally forbidden to be used. And please don’t give us examples where a government agency that might just use a different term, because that is not the same thing. Pleas give us so e specific laws where it’s use is overtly forbidden.

> They also have restricted access to gender affirming healthcare even in the private sector

You are making a blanket generalized statement here but how about you give us what “they” are actually restricting and what their argument as to why they are restricting it actually is and why that argument is wrong.

Not knowing what specifics you are referring to, but my suspicion is the what is the use of puberty blockers and the who is young children. That would make your statement lack some important nuance. It’s also not necessarily an unusual or even controversial stance for conservatives to act conservatively in regards to supporting novel medical treatments on children. Especially treatments that are even polarizing within medical circles and can have a lifelong impact.

I included more than enough information for anyone with basic reading comprehension to be able to generate their own Google search terms. Laws are public record.

No offense but it’s lazy to just give partisan generic talking points and tell people to “go Google”.

I think the conservative positions that are specific to trans and gender issues seem to center around children. At least from the conversations I have had with conservative friends on the topic that has been the concern they have. If that is not the case, provide something to prove me wrong. You do your argument a disservice if you cannot provide depth beyond generics.

You have not given any sources in your comments, this person is just operating in the mode you set them up for. Where is the left pushing these policies on children? Is there any substance to your claims?

I made no claims other than conversations I have had with conservatives that I know personally and am not arguing the merits of the policies for or against.

"I think the conservative opposition is more directed at how early the modern left wants to introduce the concept to children"

Do you really think that needed sources cited? Literally the most publicly prominent piece of legislation that was specifically passed by the GOP on this topic was in Florida last year with HB 1557. That legislation specifically created public education prohibitions about the topic with children aged 6 to 10 and had parental notification rights in it as well. The left opposed it vehemently and it was literally all over the news for months in the spring. Disney even fired a CEO over the fallout caused from his choice to publicly voice opposition to it.

For what it’s worth, here is your source, if you can think of a more public piece of legislation than this that expands prohibitions for trans topics beyond children, post it.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...

Because the GOP passes a law prohibiting something doesn't mean that thing is happening. Does that make sense to you?

Sure, except…that particular bill was a response to specific real situations that happened in Florida related to educators not informing parents and specifically using age inappropriate materials in the classroom. Additionally, the coordinated opposition wasn’t arguing that it was unnecessary, but rather the prohibition would not allow educators to do it.

Can you give me examples of those things happening in Florida?

> Primarily in schools and the desire by some on the modern left for educators to have private conversations about the topic with their children without the parent’s knowledge.

You'll have to substantiate this, because I'm not aware of "the left" pushing these policies.

If there isn't a "problem" with trans people, what's wrong with kids knowing about them, similar to gay people? I'm not saying educators should say "hey, did you consider if you're really a boy?!?!" but avoiding the topic altogether, which is what it seems like the right wants to do (have you looked up "trans social contagion" at any time? this talk is EVERYWHERE).

They think there is a problem, and it is only natural to not want problems to exist. There is a gradient, but most conservatives, in my view, do not want trans people to be a thing - they think there is a problem with it.

I am aware of people in my circles thinking trans people is a disease or a medical condition and want it to go away.

> There is not a single conservative that I know who cares one iota what a trans adult does, identifies as, or believes about themselves

Does this extend to them using bathrooms, or whatever, as well as the "women need their own private spaces!!" narrative? I'd certainly say that caring what bathroom a person uses falls in the "caring about what they do" category.

Some might be genuinely trans, but others are just making a mockery of women and women's issues, e.g.

https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/16031779022916853...

https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/145376090877835673...

https://twitter.com/MYST_MX9/status/1607401871739879429

Why should anyone support these men and their misogyny? Why should they be allowed into any space for women?

It's basically equivalent to white men wearing blackface in terms of offensiveness, yet we're expected to go along with the pretence that all of these guys are women.

If the trans movement wants to gain support across the board, they need some serious gatekeeping to exclude these type of men from parasiting the wider activism.

Uh, how is this related to school policies? I don't see things through the same lens you do, so it would be helpful if you could explain it to me.

> It's basically equivalent to white men wearing blackface in terms of offensiveness, yet we're expected to go along with the pretence that these guys are women.

You have to break this down for me! Do you think this applies to all trans people? Or just trans people who want to be stars on social media by acting like everyone else does on social media? I think it is often cringe too, but I don't think it's b/c they are trans, I just think social media is cringe. Maybe your problem is partially with social media?

Like, maybe you're not familiar - but the guy whistlindiesel was constantly talking about how he's going to go to Hawaii and drive on sacred land there as a joke b/c it pisses off Hawaiians. That was super cringe, but I didn't take his views and suggest that all white dudes, or white conservatives, or [WHATEVER] are supporting or pushing similar policies (tho my younger cousins watch this shit and they do learn from him and seem to lack maturity b/c of this). Great conversation about this here, interesting perspective, and I think we can BOTH agree with the "social media influencers want attention" take! https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/ozsska/...

BTW men taking hormones DO get cramps, believe it or not! This is documented: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-trans-women-ge...

Trump has had a lot of controversial guests at the WH has well, remember!

> Does this extend to them using bathrooms Since the primary argument behind that is related to concerns about child safety, so I’d say it falls within their primary fears.

I am not arguing that their concerns are valid or not BTW, but just what my understanding of what they are. However, I feel like much of the approach the left has taken towards the conservative position in this debate has been ineffective because they don’t work to address the concerns but instead obfuscate behind slogan, sound bite, and generalizations.

And only because like religious circles, conservative circles need to be the _only_ ones to have private conversations with their children; how else are they to be brainwashed into hating everyone that isn't the same colour/sexuality/traditional gender roles like them and their mammy & daddy and grandpappy & grand-mama going back generations.

You were making sense until your Musk hatred came out. Name someone who is doing more for free speech right now than Musk?

Musk's free speech crusade is in the process of being ambushed by reality.

How so?

Musk supports speech that Musk likes; that isn't freedom. For example, Musk is against speech that criticizes Twitter or Elon; some are intimidated and harassed (e.g., called pedophiles), and some are silenced (or 'canceled') including journalists and others.

I think you are spot on, but I have one small quibble. You use the word "performative" to mean something like "just for show", or "primarily concerned with symbols". Performative is a technical term from linguistics which means something quite different (and interesting!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance

For some reason, that word has become widely used for your meaning. But I think it's not the right term! We should say something like "theatrical", as in security theatre.

As an aside, I think a Marxist would describe the divide as idealism vs materialism (both technical terms in Marxism).

> We should say something like "theatrical", as in security theatre.

How about "hypocrite"? If I understand correctly, in Greek, that originally meant "actor". So when Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, he was saying that their religion was just theater - it was just for show.