Is the left on the right side

So no, it wasn't an honest attempt to deal with immigration and refugees (and if a leader of the centre right party like Angela Merkel can say "We'll manage this" it is hardly an exclusively left-wing issue). It was Sahra Wagenknecht trying to compete with fascists for the votes of Trump-style nationalists.

We are presented with a limited number of parties to vote for. They offer a limited variety of positions. If the NDP took the official position of decriminalization of prostitution I wouldn't vote for them. Voters with concerns about high immigration had one party to vote for so they voted right. Quebecers have not become right wing. There is one party that is concerned about immigration and dropping the separation issue, CAQ. 

I may disagree with 90% of a party's program and still vote for them if there is an important issue I agree with them on. 

She said that Germany finally needed to have a discussion about the problems caused by refugees — as if anything else had been discussed since 2015.

So what was done about the concerns of the people? What changed? People want more than talk. 

It is kind of strange that Wagenknecht claims to oppose “identity politics” and then holds up religion and nationalism. Isn’t that just a kind of German nationalist identity politics?

Yes it is and Germany of all countries should know how dangerous nationalism is but she won't lose any votes over it. 

A millionaire who lives in a villa, she has a PhD in economics 

The simple act of being rich and having a PhD are not reasons to discriminate against someone. 

People are going to vote for the person they believe most shares their concerns. A new open borders political party will fail because open borders would destroy a country. I think most people decide who to vote for based on having knocked out the alternatives. For me in the running are Green, (at one time Cannabis) NDP and Liberals. I didn't vote Cannabis because I wanted legalization. I voted Cannabis because I couldn't bring myself to vote for the others. 

Swing voters in Canada tune in the last week, maybe two, and decide based on rudimentary knowledge of the leaders and the platforms. Usually there is no point in finding out more. 

From the moment the Quebec election was announced I knew I would vote QS. Their overwhelmingly progressive platform makes it impossible not to even though I am furious over their insistence of promising a referendum and that is a huge one issue for me. 

There is no need for me to go deep. I suspect this is the same for most democratic countries. 

You know, I wouldn't mistake people not agreeing with you on some of these issues as "not being able to talk about them". I think it has been demonstrated that we can, and do (and that is really the reason why I spoke up here in the first place).

We can talk about it because I haven't responded to the hostility in the thread. Oldgoat is not absorbing or evaluating trans information because his mind is made up. 

I will shred that article he linked to because it is chock full of propaganda and twisting of science to mean what the author wanted it to mean.

Anyone here should be able to demolish the argument but no one wants to because it supports the establishment left position. It's pseudoscience and uses language to confuse rather than illuminate.

Thank you again Mobo. You are right to check. I am getting nervous even though I believe I have been respectful.

An assumption is being made that this is all about trans women.  It's like trans men still don't exist which is ironic.

Trans men, not trans women are my primary concern. Specifically the early introduction of puberty blockers to people born female and hormones for female to male prior to the full development of the internal organs. 

Oldgoat, just read your post, thank-you.

This thread, for me, is about what has been a central theme for me for years. The left's inabiity to connect with people and win electorally. I believe that the left is absolutely "right" on most topics. Particularly economically there is hard proof that more equal societies produce more successful economies. The faster we deal with climate change the cheaper transition will be. Why is the political left so unpopular? 

So far I have noted the propensity of the left to jump to the defence on every issue. In the first video I referenced jumping to the defence of Venezualan socialism was a mistake because it bears no resemblance to socialism in the UK. Defending Venezualan socialism made it seem like that is what was being proposed for the UK. 

The praise be to China and Russia with the ulterior motive of creating a multipolar world.

On immigration the left denounces any hint of claims of negative impacts resulting from immigration. Anyone speaking up is immediately labeled as a closet or outright racist. 

Your first reaction to trans posts is to respond with a quote about how right wingers are abusing science. 

What ties these issues together is a religious devotion within the left that brooks no disagreement, ignores facts that don't align, and morally condemns anyone that doesn't fall into lockstep without question. 

Feminism does have a religious blindspot too. Nature versus nurture debate is over. It's both. 

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That shouldn't require making me invisible or silencing me. 

Are you sure you are not silencing or making invisible trans people and sex workers?

No not at all. I fully acknowledge both. I call trans women women and use the appropriate pronouns. I support their use of the bathrooms of the sex they identify as. That I reject trans ideology doesn't mean reject trans people. There are trans people that disagree with the current gender theories being pushed.

Sex workers are far from silenced and their framing of prostitution is broadly accepted and promoted by the media.

I want to abolish the fossil fuel industry. That doesn't mean I am victimizing fossil fuel workers. They aren't being silenced.

This is yet another example of misapplying leftist ideology. "sex worker" and "oil worker" are not classes. Sex work is not a sexual orientation or identity. It should be analysed from a labor perspective.

I have a feminist argument against most not all prostitution too but that is an entirely separate issue. Prostitution is being presented as something that should be treated as a regular job but then defended as though it is about class and identity.

In both cases, trans and sex work, I am being told I have no right to an opinion. That is silencing. Disagreeing with someone isn't silencing them.

JKR wrote:

 What is "trans ideology?" Is being a person who is trans an "ideology" or an  identity that is at least partially linked to biology? Are there any identities that can not be partially linked to biology?

You can't identify  male and female brains nor homosexual brains through brain scans. I'll go farther in the trans thread. There may or may not be a biological factor involved in being trans or gay. I'm not sure it matters. Even if there is a biological factor it doesn't negate the genitals a person was born with. They can be altered but not changed. 

Trans ideology claims there is no definition for "woman" but that "female" and "woman" can be used interchangably. Trans ideology tries to complicate the definition of female as being parts that are all equal in determining sex. If you got the female hormones during gestation but were physically born with male genitals you are just as female as any other female. You are a woman with a penis. Female and male are determined by gonads which become either testicles or ovaries. Sex is determined by reproductive role. Sometimes people don't develop typically but it doesn't change what sex they are. 

JKR wrote:

How is wanting to abolish sex work not trying to silence people who do sex work and not make them invisible? 

Are we silencing oil workers? Making them invisible? I would never challenge oil workers right to speak and to defend their industry. I'm not going to listen to "you don't know what it's like so you can't speak" arguments. 

JKR wrote:

 Are you being open to the opinions of sex workers when you say their work should be abolished?

Yes. So far I am finding twisted logic that argues both that prostitution is a lucrative industry presenting an opportunity for women and that prostitutes are all too poor to set up a massage parlour or escort agency for themselves. I am told it isn't easy but men and women set up their own small businesses all the time without any grants. The sex worker organization could set up a raffle, 100K members ought to be able to buy enough. The winner gets to choose which city the first co-op massage parlor or escort service opens. Profits go to setting up the next. They would have to be run just like the escort services and massage parlours are being run now but as long as they are I don't see why they would be treated any differently. 

If there is a lot of money in prostitution it doesn't appear the women are getting it at least not on the street and in brothels. 

JKR wrote:

  Are there viewpoints generally held by sex workers that you agree with?

Do survivors count? I consider some forms of prostitution less harmful than others. I'm not willing to go there if street work isn't going to be addressed as a labour issue. 

oldgoat wrote:

And yes, we can credit the moderating. :)

You might be due a little but not much. Many posters were banned or split off to form separate boards. That contributed a lot to making peace but I see it as a failure on the part of the board primarily due to policy but the moderators make policy.

I am constantly trolled.

Quote:

Why do you both hate the "left" in every post and claim to be part of the left? It is a wondrous thing to behold.

From your posts I would say that you are a left liberal, an ideology that has nothing to do with socialism and is mostly devoid of any rationale for existing since it does not accept a class analysis and has a belief in the superiority of liberal democracies. I would also say that Bob Rae is your kind of leftist.

How is that acceptable? Posts should challenge content not identity especially if the poster is hostile.

If I posted like that I would be piled on. I have regularly been told I would be treated better if I were nicer. Where have I heard that message before? Kropotkin isn't told to be nicer.

The board is calmer because everyone with opinions that didn't pass muster left rather than dealing with the constant attacks. I have taken many breaks. The only reason I am still here is because I have caught on and call it out on the first post instead of trying to defend myself. Even so it is tedious to always be on the defensive because of the level of hostility and trolling on the board towards anyone who doesn't tow the far far far left line.

Seeing how I am treated here doesn't encourage readers to post. He called me a "left liberal" as an insult. Pretty much tells anyone who is "left liberal" they aren't welcome here.

If you want to open the board to the broad left you will have to demand that all posters keep their criticism to the content of posts not the poster.

Have you read the things Susan Davis is saying to and about me? I do not dare respond to her in kind because I would get piled on by all the guys if I spoke to her disrespectfully. You would be getting alerts about my behavior.

I have come to totally accept that I am a second class citizen on this board. It has taken me a very long time to learn how to navigate the hostility thrown at me. It has made me a stronger wiser person and has boosted my confidence.

• I have never belittled you. 
• Quote the misinformation you accuse me of posting. 
• Show where I have shown bias.
• I do not use anti sex work rhetoric.
• I have never suggested or inferred in any way that sex workers are lazy.
• If I thought it was easy I wouldn't oppose it. 
• My views are not discriminatory. 
• I do not denigrate sex workers.
• sex workers like oil workers are not a separate much less a protected class.  
• You are not challenging my arguments you are attacking me. 
• The only argument I have presented so far is that street prostitution does not pass muster if the right to decent working conditions is applied. In 45+ posts not one person has given me an argument as to why it should be legal. No defence has been provided based on labour rights or other rights. 
• I have said there is a disconnect between the narrative that sex work is lucrative and has an organization representing 100K workers versus the narrative that sex workers can't open and operate sex work businesses the way men do. Escort business in particular is cheap to set up. I am not saying it is easy I am saying if a man can do it a woman can do it. It is difficult but it isn't rocket science. 
• This is the only place I have ever posted on sex work so I don't think I qualify as an anti sex work crusader.
• What possible "private interests" could I have? 

Oldgoat, can I retaliate? That is a rhetorical question which you would obviously have to say "No" to. I was going to be wickedly funny but I bit my tongue. 

Oldgoat I am patient. No need to rush your deliberations or respond to me quickly on any of my comments. I can wait days. I can hold off on any further trans comments however long. The attacks don't upset me. I just don't think it's healthy for the board or condusive to real debate.

There was a big thread about it shortly after I got here but you are right I don't know the details.

I am happy with the law as it stands. I think continued discussion should happen in the Sex as Labour topic. There has been no labour analysis done other than by me and I admit I am not an expert. There is a wall of silence or obfuscation. You refuse to engage the argument, I call you out collectively, and that becomes an excuse to continue refusing to engage. It's your right not to engage but to say this is being discussed is a cop out. I'm discussing it. What I am getting in return is avoidance which is everyone's right. No one has to discuss anything they don't want to. You are trying to bargain. To say, if we agree street work isn't safe from a labour perspective then what will you agree to in return? Why would I need to agree to anything for men to acknowledge the truth of street prostitution? 

Men picked "sex positive" feminism and the "defence" of sex workers right to be abused long ago. It was all you needed to turn your back on old-fashioned feminism and embrace the new feminism that demanded the right to serve men's sexual needs framing it as a power women have over men. Women demanded the right to be objectified in every way possible and men were all for it. When the pill came out we suddenly needed an "excuse" not to have sex. 

I don't want to discuss, I just want to acknowledge the valid concerns and arguments from the trans community. 

There is more science on how brains differ. There is nothing even close to conclusive but there are interesting differences that are worth exploring. Hormone treatments pretty much prove that they impact our emotions directly and are responsible for emotional tendencies related to gender. There is greater understanding of the hormones or chemicals released during gestation that program our bodies to change dramatically when we hit puberty then there was the last time I looked which was years and years ago. 

Lonnnng post so breaking it up into units.

susan davis wrote:

when you dismiss the work i do and perspective I bring... you are belittling in your comments - ie - and "handful of women who choose sex work" 

You bring one sex worker perspective that I am sure many sex workers agree with. That doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you. I didn’t say there are only “a handful of women who choose sex work” I said that is all I have heard from.

susan davis wrote:

  Like the articles from germany and the netherlands - you now full well we do not want what they have there yet you continue to promote those examples as if that is what canadian sex workers are calling for

I never claimed it was what you were fighting for. If I used examples from there it would have been drawing a specific parallel. I haven’t said anything about what Canadian sex workers are calling for. So far I have only argued that street work is invalid based on the parameters under which it occurs.

susan davis wrote:

you have shown bias at every turn... you have stated outright you are against sex work in all genres, locations.... 

Most genres locations not all but close enough. It doesn’t mean I’m biased. I could just be right. Let’s assume I am biased, I would say less so than yourself. You are clearly a “sex-work crusader”.

susan davis wrote:

everything you say about sex work.... is anti sex work, you act as if the experiences of street level sex work are the experiences of all sex workers even though that does not represent the majority 

I have isolated the street prostitution issue as separate from all other forms of prostitution. That is the opposite of saying it is all the same.  

pondering wrote:

I have never suggested or inferred in any way that sex workers are lazy. 

susan davis wrote:

and i quote - why can't sex workers just open their own unions? why can't sex workers just open cooperatives.... as if to say - why haven't we done it already it's "easy" and by default since we haven't "just simply done it" we must be lazy or else liars i guess... since we can't do it i must be lying about what sex workers want to do.... 

I never mentioned unions. I never said “why can’t they just”. I said “why aren’t they”. I don’t see a reason why not. I am not suggesting you personally should have done it. I’m saying 100K sex workers making good money can do it if they choose to because women are smart capable people. I think that prostitution is not nearly as financially rewarding on an industry level as people assume it is, particularly at the level of street, massage brothel, and maybe escort agency depending on which one. I think the prostitutes that have money are independent, not interested in opening businesses, and may even support the current law as conducive to keeping their prices up. I could be totally wrong on that. That may not be the reason. I’m just looking for any explanation.

pondering wrote:

I have said there is a disconnect between the narrative that sex work is lucrative and has an organization representing 100K workers…..    

susan davis wrote:

there is no such organization - remember? you made fun of me for not being able to form the organization with no funding support.

I did no such thing. I don’t know why you thought you could get funding for something that is illegal. Either you were naïve or it was a publicity thing. I thought there was already a national sex worker organization with 100K members that you were speaking about.

pondering wrote:

versus the narrative that sex workers can't open and operate sex work businesses the way men do. 

susan davis wrote:

where did i say that? i never said that - most sex industry businesses are run by women  

I didn’t say you did. Regardless of your presence or absence, in my  opinion most of the sex industry is owned by men despite how well-paying it is supposed to be for women. Run by women isn’t owned by women.

pondering wrote:

Escort business in particular is cheap to set up. 

susan davis wrote:

based on what your extensive knowledge of municipal regulations and licensing fees across the country? your intimate knowledge of how the sex industry works and the regulations which govern it? 

Men and women open up bakeries and craft businesses and hair dressing salons all the time. They manage to navigate all the licensing requirements etc. Some businesses require a lot of up-front investment others very little. Escort is on the lower end because it doesn’t require a physical location. It would still take some effort which I consider women fully capable of.

susan davis wrote:

I am not saying it is easy I am saying if a man can do it a woman can do it. It is difficult but it isn't rocket science.   

susan davis wrote:

on this point we agree - you are right, it's not rocket science - rocket science is much simpler than navigating the intricacies of the sex industry and people who work in it... nice attempt at further passive aggressive comments though - are you suggesting I am stupid? that's why I don't get it?- 

The sex industry is no more complicated than any other industry. I would say it is less complicated than most. I am not suggesting you are stupid. I have never started a business. Within most large organizations there are a variety of people with all kinds of skills which they use in the promotion of whatever their particular cause is.  

susan davis wrote:

it's the right to feed and house my family, it's the right to survive...it's the right to work in a "legal"occupation and be able access workers rights and protections.

You have all of those rights. You just have to choose an industry that is legal.

susan davis wrote:

Most feminism discusses intersectionality, you however are the one stuck in the past....

I have pointed out multiple times that street workers are marginalized often minority, often indigenous women, trans and gay youth, drug or alcohol addicts, and the mentally ill. You don’t consider them victims but I do.

susan davis wrote:

again casting sex workers rights as some how "men's rights" and acting as if sex workers are some small minority who "want" to service men's sexual needs... you dismiss everything else and return to that every time....

The sex industry is huge. Workers within it are not a minority in the sense of race or class or any other way. I don’t believe that women want to service the sexual needs of large numbers of men.

I believe men are motivated by their perception, experience, and sex drive which differs greatly from what women experience. Their lens is male because they are men.

Many men believe that prostitution is natural and that getting married is trading sex for financial support therefore the same as prostitution. They think it is like the hunter bringing home the meat and being rewarded with sex from a grateful woman. They accept the argument that prostitution will always exist because men want sex and some women are willing to get paid for it.

If something is inevitable the focus becomes how to manage it.

An association is a connection or cooperative link between people or organizations which can be a union but it isn't a synonym. 

I have read lots and lots of pro-prostitution material on this site and many others. Street prostitution cannot be made safe through unionization. 

Most street workers as described in the SCC ruling on Bedford would not be transformed into indoor workers through the opening of brothels. 

You have yet to point out the "misinformation" you keep accusing me of promoting. 

Any employer or business that does nothing other than set up appointments for workers and buyers of their services can do so without a physical location. For example, a service matching babysitters and their employers. Everything can be done electronically. The service charges an introduction fee and processes payment of the fee so there is a record of which freelance worker was linked with which employer. Driver/security can be hired. Further negotiations occur between the independent worker and employer at the location of the worker's choice.

Any business takes some time and effort and money to set up. There are probably a variety of reasons it hasn't happened yet. I certainly don't have the answers. It does make me sceptical of the "woman power" arguments. I think a co-op escort service run by the women who work at it would take off like hot cakes. I don't think the sex industry would like that at all. Not one bit. 

You continue to illustrate my claim that the left is hostile to feminists who don't tow the line on pro sex-worker propaganda. Your sole purpose here has always been to defend the sex industry under the guise of sex worker rights. 

Within "sex worker" rights your focus has been squarely on brothels and advertising. Your arguments are all formulated on a free market no regulations capitalist industry model. 

Even though I am against the existence of escort services I don't see how they can be effectively controlled through laws. I am strongly opposed to men profiting so if you or any women you know are interested I urge you to go for it. You could put the guys out of business with a co-op model. I'm sure you could get all kinds of free legal and business advice on how to start up. 

If I were a sex work promoter on behalf of women I would lobby for much more control over strip clubs with an eventual transfer of ownership to women. I would figure out some fancy activist argument based on it being a gendered profession in which men exploit women and have failed to offer reasonable working conditions. I would argue that given what women have faced historically granting us full ownership and control of the sex industry, in which we are the primary product, would be a step towards reparations. This would be with the limitation that they all become co-ops. Worker owned from top to bottom. 

I approach the topic from what I believe is a leftist perspective that encompasses concern for women as a class, working women as a class, indigenous women as a class, impoverished women as a class. The well-being of sex workers is important but not as a class or a minority separate or different from the rest of us. "Sex worker" is not an identity. 

When feminists succeed benefits also acrue to men. You just never seem to really get on our side until we prove it. 

The domination of the left by men has negative consequences. 

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/do-companies-with-female-executives-perf...

According to a number of studies in recent years, there is increasing evidence that women in executive positions and on corporate boards can have a positive impact on a company’s performance. A more diverse C-suite, these studies conclude, is connected to higher margins, bigger profits, and better total return to shareholders.

“We find clear evidence that companies with a higher proportion of women in decision-making roles continue to generate higher returns on equity, while running more conservative balance sheets,” according to a 2016 report from Credit Suisse. “In fact, where women account for the majority in the top management, the businesses show superior sales growth, high cash flow returns on investments and lower leverage.”

We form half the human race. You have no idea how disheartening it is to have the men here incapable of uttering the words "sexism exists in Canada". Or "women deserve better than street prostitution". 

You betrayed us and continue to betray us. 

Doesn't feel like it. Yours is the first acknowledgement I have ever seen on this board. Now that teen boys have erectile dysfunction maybe men will consider the harms of porn in the next decade or two. I think strangulation as part of the sex act went out of favor when a man was charged with murder but fisting remains popular. Sex with horses is probably out based on animal protection laws.

The men's leftist movement fights for the dignity of farm workers and rights to decent wages and conditions and fights for women's right to serve men sexually under degrading, exploitative and dangerous conditions. It doesn’t seem like you think women deserve better than street prostitution.

I'm really impressed by the logic that leads to arguing that fighting for the rights of minority women to sexually service primarily colonialist men under abusive conditions is decolonization. I will eventually write a post explaining how it is not but I only have so much time. Even when racism is a component sexism wins.

I am working on my argument for sex is not a service that is no different than a professional back massage. Let me begin with this point. Straight men would not accept a blow job from a big fat man in lieu of one from a young attractive woman.

Then there is the "world's oldest profession" angle to address which posits that if abuse is inevitable then it should be managed properly for safety reasons. Sort of like, if slavery is inevitable we should have laws protecting slaves from unreasonable working conditions, only as long as the slaves are willing of course.

If indeed more men than yourself recognize the extreme sexism in North America it hasn’t been reflected in your treatment of the topic of the sex industry. You use jumping from angle to angle to avoid any sort of analysis of specific aspects. You actively fight the ability of progressive women to look deeply into the sex industry to challenge the extreme damage that it does to women, to our perception of ourselves, to the perception men have of us, to our physical safety and to our ability to move freely and advance professionally. Then you respond innocently “but we let the conversations happen”.

I’m sticking with street prostitution until I am done which will be tonight. Then I will choose my next sub-topic aside from Bill C 36. A Spanish judge ruled that prostitution is rape the resistance to which is overcome by money.

Men of the left embraced “sex positive” feminism to protect male privilege and called it women’s rights.