Inarticulacy is the hallmark of the anti-Abbott movement, as I noted in The Australian recently.
The old Left could at least say what it wanted. The new Left — if that is what this is — relies on gut feeling.
Veteran socialist John Passant nailed it in a blog last December explaining why he quit Socialist Alternative:
It is a caricature of real Marxism…F**k Tony Abbott is a juvenile slogan of adolescent angst, not serious political engagement.
John Stuart Mill’s advice on intemperate debate is pertinent:
It is ﬁt to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed…
Purveyors of fashionable arguments can use invective with impunity:
With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the un-prevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation.
While those who argue unfashionable positions are obliged to be more circumspect:
In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.
Regulation, however, is never justified…
It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either.