h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Damn! A joke ruined by poor typing.

Well of course he dined being right wing. Thatchers greatest triumph was convincing the voting public that the her Tory government was apolitical, whilst actually being one of the greatest ideologicsally driven parties this country has ever seen.

Remember the old joke - 'We'll have no politics here, this is the Conservative Party.'

Tebbits cretinous (possibly proof of a failing mental ability) argumant about the Nazis is merely proof that the idea continues to this day.

But to answer the original question, no, bigots come in all political shapes and sizes in my experience.

You know I never ever heard anyone ask such a question about racial intolerance or sexual inequality.I'm wondering why you ask it about homosexuality in particular.

People who would never be caught making racist remarks, and who have the wit not to be overtly sexist in front of me, will still express homophobia. You see. Homosexuality is perverted. It is a sin. One can feel really warm and *good* about homophobia in a way in a way that it would be harder to feel morally virtuous about sexism or racism.

>> btw...apparently Tebbit repeated his 'The Nazis were left wing' tosh in yesterday;s Torygraph. <<

How exactly do you define Right Wing, then? And how do you define Left Wing and not use the word "Socialist"?

RF

Well said, Ben. Everyone can snigger about poofs. (pooves?)

Freddy...that's a big question with lots of different answers. Political movements and parties are multivariate. Probably the best answer is 'We all know what they mean...roughly'

Well, if you actually read Tebbit's argument about how the Nazis were Socialist, you may find that it holds water, rather than dismiss it as "tosh".

RF

No...I'll try...

Right wing = I deserve the best.
Left wing = So does everyone else.

Right wing = freedom
Left wing = control

RF

Well...a valid point, and a contradiction well exposed.

The right includes both Tebbitite libertarians, and those who would control the majority for the sole benefit of their class.

The left has an underlying assumption that a degree of control is necessary to ensure that greedy individuals do not have undue influence over society - but also an assumption that all humans should be free and equal.

So...there is an *additional*, orthogonal dimensiom of freedom vs control. There is a leftwing tendency which advocates 'freiwillige Selsbstkontrolle' - voluntary self control: Although we are free individuals, we have a moral duty to act for the greater good.

So...getting back to sexuality...homosexuality in no way harms the greater good and thus need not be subject to control.

But think of the children!

Right wing = freedom (unless you are Jewish, Communist, mentally retarded, a Gypsy or any other minority we decide we don't like, like single mothers, benefit 'scroungers' and people living in council houses. Then we'll control 'them' good and proper and tell the rest it's for your and their own good.)

Left wing = control

Sorry, Tebbitts argument doesn't hold water, and simply because it fits into your rather simplistic view of what defines 'left' and 'right' doesn't make it any better.

As I say, it's yet another attempt to define the Right in this country as 'apolitical' and the rest as dangerous extremists.

Right Wingers are Homophobic but I don't think all homophobes are right wing. Left wingers can be just as intolerant as right in their way. How many people did the Russian communists send to the gulags for disagreeing with them?

And not all right wingers are homophobic.

Surely it's more a matter of psychology. Certain patterns of emotion and certain patterns of thinking *tend* to group together.

Ben

Yes...I did mention meme clusters a while back.

Remember also that political ideas fit on top of a pre-existing culture. For example...British Asians are, traditionally Labour voters, and many of them come from a strong socialist tradition on the sub-continent...often to the left of labour. So - they're in favour of redistribution, public services, etc. etc. - all left-wing ideas. But this sits on top of a traditional culture which is not *on the while* woman-friendly or gay-friendly.

Sometimes, though, political ideas come in which change the culture. Think of the politicisation of miners' wives in '83/'84.

Left wing = control

I guess I agree - the control of society and economy to maximise the wellbeing of all.

The big challenge for the left is how to run an economy that way. Centrally-controlled economies have been a disaster. Market forces and individual enterprise seem to deliver benefits...although if unbridled (a la Tebbitism) lead to abject misery for a large part of society. European-style Social Market economies seem like a reasonable compromise but are currently facing challenges from the global market.

I'd disagree that homophobia is a particularly right-wing area, as people have mentioned, there are plenty of examples of left-wingers who are guilty of it as well. Also, since right-wing politics and libertarianism usually go together fairly well, at least conceptually, right wing governments shouldn't be expressing ideas like homophobia or racism, because the government has no right to interefering in the private lives of people, especially morality.

However, I can see where SoRB is coming from and I think it's the religious aspect that causes the confusion (I'm genuinely not Della- or religion-bashing here so bear with me) Under a true right-wing government, laws and such should be based on the will of the people, the opinions of "the man on the Clapham omnibus", and not any other motives. The government shouldn't be doing things with its own agenda, simply serving its public.

Whereas left-wing governments to tend to create some morality of their own, right-wing governments steer clear. Other bodies are left to to it, and religions have a major role in this, and it can be seen that under many right-wing governments (excluding outright dictatorships though), religions do have a greater say in public life, and the taboo of homosexuality is almost a purely religious thing, it has no other strong basis. Therefore when the prevailing attitude is to the right, religions become more important and their attitudes, including homophobia, become more widespread in a society.

My initial reaction after reading post 1 was that homophobia is a 'right-wing trait', but after thinking about it (something I haven't done for quite a while), I remember that I can't honestly draw a line in the sand

I was born into what I'd describe as an 'anti-oppression' family, yet my mother and father approach the issues from rather different angles - which probably explains why it took me, a straight male, so long to form an opinion about homosexuality (and why they are no longer together!)

My father, a retired engineer, is (academically) quite bright and has a well developed ability to notice patterns - both in his work and societal issues. Yet he is somehow blinkered by what is, at first, a surprisingly conservative outlook on certain topics. Although he knows, from first-hand experience, that racism (and now ageism) is 'wrong', he can't/refuses to draw the links with homophobia, women's rights etc etc... I have always attributed this to his 'faith' and a belief in 'papal infallabilty' etc - something, bizarrely, he consciously _chose_ to adopt in his late teens

In contrast, my mother is what I'd describe as a true socialist - in her heart she knows that oppression is wrong and has made a conscious effort to 'draw the links'. Perhaps because of this, she no longer supports nor respects any 'pontifications' from on high

In 1981, the placid, hum-drum veneer of 'racial harmony' that passed for mainstream life here in Aotearoa/NZ/Godzone (coincidentally, where Della lives) was rather abruptly shattered when the NZ Rugby Football Union decided to invite the South African Springboks to tour.

Almost overnight, 1000s and 1000s of 'ordinary Kiwis' became 'politicised' to the point where a state of civil war seemed imminent. People from ALL walks of life donned helmets, groin-protectors and 'gumption' to demonstrate their beliefs in 'equality' - and in so doing, many - but by no means all - undertook a significant 'personal journey' that redefined how they saw the world

Three years later, in July 1984, the National (right wing, pro-tour, anti-gay) Party lost a snap election to David Lange's Labour Party

In March 1985, Fran Wilde MP (Labour) introduced the Homosexual Law Reform Bill (HLRB), which saw several high profile MPs from both sides of the house come out (excuse the pun) as first-rate homphobes.

At first, despite my 'socialist' heart - the one that so quickly leapt to support the 'No Tour' campaign - I had no idea that homophobia was wrong. But, it quickly became apparent that many, many of the people I had come to respect and admire in 1981 were equally vociferous in support of the HLRB

So, I simply had to wonder why. And I soon realised that oppression is oppression is oppression

However, my 'god-fearing' father and most of his ilk were (and remain) homophobes

On the left/right wing divide... it is intersting to note (at least for me) that one of the most vocal opponents of the HLRB was Geoff Braybrooke, MP for Napier (a Labour seat for 50 years until Nov 2005, i.e 10 years _after_ the HLRB was passed) who teamed up with two National MPs (Graeme Lee - Hauraki, and Norm Jones - Invercargill) to launch an anti-law-reform petition

I am of the opinion that all 'isms' are essentially the same - they are the product of 'prejudice' multplied by 'power' - where 'power' is usually focussed on maintaining the status quo and prejudice is simply a synonym for ignorance, which is usually a 'phobia of the unknown', a reaction common to (almost) all animals

Overcoming ignorance is by no means an easy journey, especially when it undermines our trust/beliefs/etc... It raises the question that 'if _they_ were wrong about this, what else is blatantly wrong?'

Sometimes, it's easier to consign such questions to the 'too hard' basket and revert to a state of blissful ignorance - even if it does betray our 'socialist' hearts

In light of this, is it really all that surprising that 'isms' are rife - even amongst the 'left wing'/'anti-oppression'/'anti-whatever' camps?

for all of that, especially

"Overcoming ignorance is by no means an easy journey, especially when it undermines our trust/beliefs/etc... It raises the question that 'if _they_ were wrong about this, what else is blatantly wrong?'

Sometimes, it's easier to [...] revert to a state of blissful ignorance"

Very well put. Thank you.

SoRB

On defining Left and Right

Right = Freedom, economically; a free economy with less controls and a more lassiez-faire approach, ie less pro-welfare state. Control, socially; 'looking out' for the moral standards of the country etc.

Left = Control, economically; pro-welfare state, controling economics, ie nationalising key industries. Freedom, socially; greater freedoms to think/do as one wants.

Extremist parties, eg Nazis, Stalinist Communists, become more like each other, tending to favour control in both arenas, horseshoe effect.

Other extremist parties, eg Anarchists, Libertarians, Pre-1918 Bolsheviki, that favour lack of all controls tend also to be anti-state/govt in general.

Relating this to tolerance of sexual diversity, limiting this would be a social control, and therefore right wing.

Organised religion in general tends to focus on controlling society and social values, making them similarly right-wing (exception some forms of Buddhism and some Deists)

bb