Is the Left Wing more truthful than the Right Wing, and if so, why?

[Jennaonthebeach]

I don't remember Jeremy Corbyn ever being "fact checked" tbh, they just smeared him to death using their media outlets, and then not fact checking their own lies.

 

[The39thStep]

Liberals are the worst in my opinion

 

[Spandex]

I don't remember Jeremy Corbyn ever being "fact checked" tbh, they just smeared him to death using their media outlets, and then not fact checking their own lies.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

ah well, so much for my memory.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, depends how you define "the left", and indeed what you think the truth is, but I think there is definitely a comparable level of conspiratorial thinking. I suppose there is an ethical distinction between someone deliberately and knowingly repeating untruths and someone repeating bollocks that they believe to be true, whether that's pizzagate or the White Helmets being Al-Qaeda, but the difficulty is that from the outside it's pretty difficult to tell which is which.

 

[Brainaddict]

I think this is generally true except that sometimes things become polarised into good and evil on the left, and then it's hard to challenge. For example gentrification being very bad, social cleansing etc etc, and because it's been turned into a campaigning point it's no longer possible to talk about in a nuanced way e.g. the thousands of black families who sold up their inner city London homes with a feeling of great relief to be leaving an area where their kids were getting in trouble, leaving for 'nicer' areas, and with a lot of unearned cash in the bank. I hear a lot more white people than black people talking about social cleansing in this country and I think there are reasons for that.

Some of the stuff around Grenfell made me squirm a bit. Apparently the cladding was just a conspiracy to make the tower look nicer for richer residents. Nothing to do with the fact that all single-skin tower blocks are gradually getting clad in every borough and town in the land. The evidence is that the planning application said the tower would look nicer, but every planning application says that about the development they are proposing. Even Peter Apps's book on this was a bit dishonest I think. He admits that the cladding would have made the tower easier to heat and that was a big reason for doing it, then quickly brushes over it to get to the 'improving the appearance' bit of the planning application.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

There's a strain of right wing recently that's given up any pretence of interest in reality isn't there. Obviously not all right wingers are in that group though and it sucks in people who are nominally left wing as well, so I guess it depends if you still consider them to be so. Someone like Naomi Wolf probably still considers herself broadly left for example.

More generally we've all got our preconceptions and biases haven't we, left or right.

 

[two sheds]

Admittedly I'll not notice distortions of facts relating to subjects I generally agree with.There's quite some difference between, though, urban and right wing forums/newspaper comments sections. 'Facts' that are wrong largely get challenged here whereas they largely get amplified on right wing forums.

 

[LDC]

There's a strain of people recently that's given up any pretence of interest in reality isn't there.

Yes.

 

[danny la rouge]

There's a strain of right wing recently that's given up any pretence of interest in reality isn't there. Obviously not all right wingers are in that group though and it sucks in people who are nominally left wing as well, so I guess it depends if you still consider them to be so. Someone like Naomi Wolf probably still considers herself broadly left for example.

More generally we've all got our preconceptions and biases haven't we, left or right.

A lot of what’s being called left, I’d call liberal. But then these are all contested terms that mean different things to the different people using them.

(I’m an anarchist communist, two terms with so much baggage I sometimes wonder how useful they are).

But the general idea that “the left” is more truthful than the right is, I think, naive. It’s saying other people’s beliefs are disingenuous: my beliefs are founded in The Truth. That may be reassuring, but it’s just rationalisation.

The fact is every account of every event is biased. You just have to go in with an awareness of the narrator’s biases.

Take how the history of science influences the explanations of the era. The 17th century was the century of physics, the 18th century is the century of chemistry, the 19th the century of biology, the 20th psychology. Broadly. The explanations of how humans work were mechanical in the 17th century. But psychological in the 20th. Descartes wanted to locate the soul in the pituitary. Adorno in the psyche. Neither is more truthful, just coming from a different angle.

This is not a post modernist point about “grand narratives”, just a recognition that people, even when they’re wrong, aren’t more or less inclined to truth or falsehood depending on their philosophy, their world view. The missing ingredient is power and maintaining power.

When the cops lied about Jean Charles de Menezes, it wasn’t because they tend to be right wing in outlook (though they do), it was to protect their position. When the Sun lied about the fans at Hillsborough, it wasn’t because they are right wing in outlook (though they are), it was because they wanted to back up the West Yorks Police. When the BBC News reversed the order of events when they edited the footage of Orgreave, it was because they’re the de facto state broadcasting company. Their position in the structure of civil society meant they were more likely to make this “mistake”.

 

[BigMoaner]

Don't think it's a left and right issue. I know folk on both sides who care deeply about the truth and careful thinking. We are fundamentally ignorant in so many regards and that is played out on both sides, and often it is those who are most visible, mouthy, prominent, and most unaware that they are ignorant. Most politicos just care about being right, the affirmation of their own projections about how the world is and should be. It can be like a sport. Truth is out there. I'm not even that motivated to find it any more tho.

 

[BigMoaner]

The conspiracy, trump umbrella of the right is next level accelerated ignorance though. I find it both grim and fascinating how dumb that particular wing is. I don't get satisfaction from seeing them like this. I will never be without political opponents so I yearn and crave any political opponents I do have to be reasonable, careful. But those trump rightists etc, there's not even entry points for a discussion to be had.

 

[chilango]

Personally, I think left-right is the wrong lense to look at "truth" through. Power (who has it, where does it come from, how do they keep it) might be a more useful angle to approach imo.

 

[PTK]

A lot of what’s being called left, I’d call liberal. But then these are all contested terms that mean different things to the different people using them.

(I’m an anarchist communist, two terms with so much baggage I sometimes wonder how useful they are).

But the general idea that “the left” is more truthful than the right is, I think, naive. It’s saying other people’s beliefs are disingenuous: my beliefs are founded in The Truth. That may be reassuring, but it’s just rationalisation.

The fact is every account of every event is biased. You just have to go in with an awareness of the narrator’s biases.

Take how the history of science influences the explanations of the era. The 17th century was the century of physics, the 18th century is the century of chemistry, the 19th the century of biology, the 20th psychology. Broadly. The explanations of how humans work were mechanical in the 17th century. But psychological in the 20th. Descartes wanted to locate the soul in the pituitary. Adorno in the psyche. Neither is more truthful, just coming from a different angle.

This is not a post modernist point about “grand narratives”, just a recognition that people, even when they’re wrong, aren’t more or less inclined to truth or falsehood depending on their philosophy, their world view. The missing ingredient is power and maintaining power.

When the cops lied about Jean Charles de Menezes, it wasn’t because they tend to be right wing in outlook (though they do), it was to protect their position. When the Sun lied about the fans at Hillsborough, it wasn’t because they are right wing in outlook (though they are), it was because they wanted to back up the West Yorks Police. When the BBC News reversed the order of events when they edited the footage of Orgreave, it was because they’re the de facto state broadcasting company. Their position in the structure of civil society meant they were more likely to make this “mistake”.

Well expressed.

There are the conscious lies, as in the cases of Jean Charles de Menezes, Hillsborough, and Orgreave, and then there is the unconscious bias of people rooted in a certain class outlook. Social reality appears different to people in different classes. They literally perceive society in a different way.

 

[danny la rouge]

Personally, I think left-right is the wrong lense to look at "truth" through. Power (who has it, where does it come from, how do they keep it) might be a more useful angle to approach imo.

Indeed.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

 

[hitmouse]

When the cops lied about Jean Charles de Menezes, it wasn’t because they tend to be right wing in outlook (though they do), it was to protect their position. When the Sun lied about the fans at Hillsborough, it wasn’t because they are right wing in outlook (though they are), it was because they wanted to back up the West Yorks Police.

If we're on about truth and accuracy, I have to say that, as scummy as they may be, I don't think that West Yorkshire Police can really be blamed for Hillsborough.

Anyway, this has properly got me thinking now. I think that part of the problem is that we're expected to have opinions on a wide range of things we have no personal knowledge or experience of, so that makes us all very susceptible to confirmation bias and similar. Has probably always been the case throughout history, but particularly so nowadays. I've never been to Syria or Ukraine, so everything I "know" about those places is just me looking at stuff other people have said and going "yeah, that seems plausible to me", and similarly I believe vaccines generally work but that's not based on me having undertaken any detailed scientific study on the subject, and I think Andrew Tate's a nasty misogynist shit but I don't think based on me having watched any of his stuff, it could be that if I ever watched one of his videos I'd learn that he's actually a thoughtful feminist educator who's somehow ended up being the most misrepresented man in history. I reckon in all those cases, the received wisdom and second-hand opinions I've picked up on those subjects are probably reasonably accurate depictions of reality, but without doing a fair amount of interrogating my sources I'm as prone to anyone else to repeating falsehoods that I picked up from a credible-sounding source.

Much more I could say about all this, but I don't want to end up writing an essay, especially since I still need to clean the kitchen.

 

[Cloo]

Personally, I think left-right is the wrong lense to look at "truth" through. Power (who has it, where does it come from, how do they keep it) might be a more useful angle to approach imo.

I think that is a good point - the communists had power, they lied, the right has the government and media power, it lies.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on urbs, I am expecting a truly hideous election campaign next year - a RW government on its knees, but with most of the mainstream media on its side, with apparently no positive policy ideas others than making things worse for outgroups that their tame media have been fanning hatred of. I presume the rags will have junior reporters sifting through every bit of social media and info on every Labour candidate to try and find something, no matter how minor, they can exaggerate into a shock horror headline. I don't think it'll actually save the Tories, but it will give an awful lot of fodder to people who want to spread bullshit about the Left online.

 

[Red Cat]

If we're on about truth and accuracy, I have to say that, as scummy as they may be, I don't think that West Yorkshire Police can really be blamed for Hillsborough.

Anyway, this has properly got me thinking now. I think that part of the problem is that we're expected to have opinions on a wide range of things we have no personal knowledge or experience of, so that makes us all very susceptible to confirmation bias and similar. Has probably always been the case throughout history, but particularly so nowadays. I've never been to Syria or Ukraine, so everything I "know" about those places is just me looking at stuff other people have said and going "yeah, that seems plausible to me", and similarly I believe vaccines generally work but that's not based on me having undertaken any detailed scientific study on the subject, and I think Andrew Tate's a nasty misogynist shit but I don't think based on me having watched any of his stuff, it could be that if I ever watched one of his videos I'd learn that he's actually a thoughtful feminist educator who's somehow ended up being the most misrepresented man in history. I reckon in all those cases, the received wisdom and second-hand opinions I've picked up on those subjects are probably reasonably accurate depictions of reality, but without doing a fair amount of interrogating my sources I'm as prone to anyone else to repeating falsehoods that I picked up from a credible-sounding source.

Much more I could say about all this, but I don't want to end up writing an essay, especially since I still need to clean the kitchen.

Who creates this expectation to have opinions? I find other people's opinions really annoying on the whole

 

[8ball]

Who creates this expectation to have opinions? I find other people's opinions really annoying on the whole

Ok, well we’ve eliminated you from ongoing enquiries…

 

[Knotted]

The right is fundamentally dishonest because it has to promote the interests of the few as the interests of the many. Most right-wing thinking revolves around generalisations and whataboutery which may not be lies as such but are dishonest evasions. When you do get a right winger saying the quiet part out loud they have to retract like that recent case of that property developer who explained the need for unemployment.

There are left wingers who are just as bad, but it's not a requirement.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, I (and I think a few others) have been concentrating on all the things wrong with "the left" here but I don't know if there is a left equivalent to the 4chan/8chan culture and everything that's come out of that.

 

[8ball]

As I've mentioned elsewhere on urbs, I am expecting a truly hideous election campaign next year - a RW government on its knees, but with most of the mainstream media on its side…

Yeah, true.

And there’s going to be an election in the UK too.

 

[Cloo]

Yeah, true.

And there’s going to be an election in the UK too.

I meant the UK election! But yes, US as well.

 

[BigMoaner]

Reminds me of that Dylan line "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine". Another one of his lines I like "we always did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view".

There's no excuse for a kind of flat relativism, tho. I just think the compulsion to lie is probably evenly spread across most of the political spectrum. Whilst say the anti Vax movement or climate denial are showing incredible ignorance, I doubt they are lying as a conscious choice, or at least the people on the ground (I'm sure those in power are though). I just think they are being ignorant. Following blindly and cohesively their own biases. (Which is especially problematic now, what with multi billion pound media companies fine tuning that algorithm all the time). An example on the left would be the ardent communist who cannot concede ever that capital has bought about positive effects on occasion. It's not lying, it's protecting their own psyches so said psyches ticks along smoothly and they can feel secure and powerful in that the way they view the world is "correct". We all do this of course.

 

[BigMoaner]

That's why I prefer my philosophy to be metaphysical rather than trying to Logic Bro my way around life. It's exhausting and tiring and so often fruitless. Better to sit with the questions that cannot be answered absolutely. These questions can then take on a kind of lived reality. ",Praxis over theory" in Heidegger's term. See also the best of spirituality, and certain philosophical forms of monastic life, east and west. Truth is valuable of course but it is not the be all and end all for being in the world. The mental strain and efforting trying to find out the truth in one's own life paradoxically in my regards got me further from it. Better just to chill out in the garden and have a vape. You could even say the will to revolution is metaphysical because it involves the ever mysterious "subject" finally having enough. Truth of material conditions and injustice is there but it's kind of secondary to mysterious unanswerable reality moving them in the first place.

 

[BigMoaner]

Parklife

 

[seventh bullet]

Without being too flippant, that's also to the credit of the regimes they were overthrowing, who didn't push the opposition to extremes. You'd not have got far overthrowing Chiang Kai-Shek or the landlord system without the murders.

It's similar with my reading on the Vietnamese struggle. The Communists had to be ruthless in the face of terror. Why is it 'awful' when revolutionaries use violence to defend themselves?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

It's similar with my reading on the Vietnamese struggle. The Communists had to be ruthless in the face of terror. Why is it 'awful' when revolutionaries use violence to defend themselves?

I don't know enough about Vietnam during the anti-colonial struggles. I do know a bit about Russia and China. Violence was used in both countries on a colossal scale, along with deliberate famine and starvation. Millions upon millions died, societies destroyed, cultures ruined, and largely with no real goals in sight. The violence was enacted in the ways that were arbitrary in many cases. And it was often directed against other revolutionaries.

 

[RD2003]

I don't know enough about Vietnam during the anti-colonial struggles. I do know a bit about Russia and China. Violence was used in both countries on a colossal scale, along with deliberate famine and starvation. Millions upon millions died, societies destroyed, cultures ruined, and largely with no real goals in sight. The violence was enacted in the ways that were arbitrary in many cases. And it was often directed against other revolutionaries.

You are Robert Conquest and I claim my £5.