The Socially Liberal Left and the Palestinians

I have understood that the Palestinians are particularly favored in the foreign policy views of the socially liberal left because they do not have a state of their own. This would, of course, be an acceptable reason, were it not for the fact that the decision against the creation of an independent Palestinian state was made by the Palestinian leadership itself — twice, in fact.

I have also been under the impression that the socially liberal left especially supports various sexual minorities and the cause of peace. What I have not understood, however, is how the minds of left-leaning people work in such a way that all their different views somehow form a coherent worldview.

This came to mind as I was reading Finnish MTV3 and Ilta-Sanomat articles about a recent report concerning the actions of Palestinian militants on October 7, 2023. According to them, the brutal sexual violence seen in the attack was not random but intentional and coordinated.

* * *

According to the report, the Palestinians used as many as thirteen forms of violence, including rape and gang rape, sexual torture and mutilation, forced nudity, killings involving sexual violence, post-mortem sexual violence, and sexual violence committed in front of family members. Nor was any of this unpleasant for the perpetrators; on the contrary, they openly took pleasure in their actions.

Of course, Palestinian militants also killed Jews without sexual violence. In total, around 1,200 people were killed, and they also took 251 hostages.

* * *

One might imagine that socially liberal leftists, who in their rhetoric support sexual diversity and peace, would condemn behavior of the kind described above and at the very least criticize the people who carried it out. However, this has not happened; instead, the Palestinians’ “achievement” has been openly celebrated in these circles even after the details of the events of October 7 became public knowledge.

This was also the case in Finland during the 2024 Pride parade, which drew as many as 100,000 participants — undoubtedly mostly people who support the socially liberal left. Nor were Palestinian support and flags absent there last year either.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Most Finnish Journalism Students Lean Toward the Ultra-Liberal Far Left
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator

When Social Media Stops Being Social

A Finnish political media, Verkkouutiset, had drawn attention to the fragmentation of political discussion on social media, resulting from the fact that many people follow only those whose opinions are close to their own. As a result, the term “social media” no longer really describes what it is; rather, it has become a platform for bubble formation or— as it used to be put— a like-minded circle jerk.

An excellent example of this is X, formerly Twitter, where discussion is almost unmoderated. However, there are several ways to shape one’s feed toward such a circle and eventually drift into a so-called rabbit hole, where a person is drawn ever deeper into one type of content.

As a result, the discussions one encounters on social media end up consisting almost entirely of messages representing a single worldview—one whose challenges remain unseen and perhaps even unrecognized.

* * *

It does not necessarily have to be this way, even though X—like, as far as I understand, nearly all social media platforms—uses an algorithm that serves users content based on their past behavior, “inferring” what they want to read.

In addition, everyone can choose whose posts they follow: for many, this means people whose opinions align with their own. But one could just as well follow the entire political spectrum on X, from the far left to the far right, from Nazis to anarchists.

Likewise, those who prefer their own circle can choose to make their posts visible only to selected audiences, excluding those whose views they do not wish to engage with. In doing so, however, they also forgo those people’s comments—and the challenge those comments might pose to their own thinking.

Even this has not been enough for everyone. Politically liberal and left-leaning groups created their own platform, Bluesky, a few years ago. Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump launched his own platform, Truth Social.

Thus, what was once a platform known for lively political debate among adults has evolved into something where the very “social” nature of social forums can be questioned—something that fosters people raised in rabbit holes, whose worldview grows narrower day by day.

* * *

Blogs are also considered social media, including this one, Thoughts of the Professor, whose subtitle emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech.

As long-time readers know, my own writings are also politically opinionated and express my views on the issues at hand. But that does not mean I would not want to see opinions differing from my own in the discussions following each post—even ones that challenge me radically.

On the contrary, such views are highly welcome, as they offer alternative perspectives and provide material for both myself and my readers to develop our thinking and worldview.

That is why I hope criticism does not disappear from discussions related to Thoughts of the Professor – or its Finnish equivalent, Professorin ajatuksia – but instead evolves into high-quality, serious argumentation. After all, the blog’s original purpose is ultimately to be part of the broader political conversation in our society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Most Finnish Journalism Students Lean Toward the Ultra-Liberal Far Left
English or Finnish — That’s the Question
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges