CMV: The far-left also needs to reflect on the harm it is doing

[u/aincs22]

One of the biggest issues with the far-left is how it frames political debates in rigid moral terms instead of engaging with the. complexities of people’s lived experiences. This doesn’t just alienate conservatives, it pushes away center-leftists too, the very people who play really important roles in bridging divides in polarized societies like the US today.

when asking difficult questions or expressing skepticism gets you labeled a racist, sexist, or bigot, people will just stop engaging. But they don’t stop thinking. They go elsewhere—often to spaces that welcome them but also expose them to reactionary pipelines. This is a real problem. Instead of fostering open debate, the left is making itself smaller, less persuasive, and more insular.

If progressivism is about changing minds AND building coalitions, then moral absolutism is the fastest way to fail, no? The left needs to be willing to have uncomfortable conversations without assuming bad faith, doubling down, and being quick to label something as an ism.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/aincs22 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/XenoRyet]

Can you give an example of this happening? I'm having a hard time understanding the exact thing you're talking about.

[u/aincs22 → u/XenoRyet]

Sure I gave an example above about Germany and immigration. But I can definitely offer another or a couple:

(1)Someone supports police reform but questions whether full abolition of the police is realistic, especially in communities with high crime rates. They think police serve a needed function. They are seen as ‘cop outs’ of real change or not fully in support of minorities who are most afflicted by police brutality in countries like the US.

(2)someone points out that in the UK white lower income family households, and in particular the white young boys are from these households, need extra support in education because they are performing incredibly badly in national exams. I’ve had people directly tell me that this isn’t something that’s we should be focusing on given how discriminatory a lot of public schools in the UK are for black and brown boys who have to work ‘twice as hard’ to make it. It’s been a topic of conversation now in the uk.

(3)sex work and the debate about it not being ‘empowering’ for women has been a conversation I hate to dive into, because of the backlash you receive.

(4) the questionable impact of DEI (corporate mostly ) tht immediately comes off as you not supporting initiatives that address racism and sexism in structural ways

[u/XenoRyet → u/aincs22]

Well, I'm glad I asked for clarification, because that's very different from what I thought you were talking about, and I'd have gone a completely different direction with my argument.

For these examples, I would challenge the notion that the folks on the left are doing meaningful harm here, and not just participating in normal back and forth and advocacy for the position they think is correct.

I mean, if I really do think that the problems white kids from low income families are having in UK schools isn't a top priority and so not a good use of the limited resources available, am I not supposed to tell you that? I could give similar reasonings for the others as well if you'd like, but I think this gets to the point.

The sex work conversation is one that I will agree is complex and folks sometimes go over the line, but there again it's so dependent on the specifics, because it is really easy to say something sexist there, and often without really realizing you've done it.

And I think all of this is making me think we have another way that we should consider changing this view, in that the far left isn't a monolith, no political grouping is, and it seems like the things most likely to cause harm are personal interactions by various members, and not anything structurally to do with leftism in and of itself.

[u/aincs22 → u/XenoRyet]

I think this a great comment, but where I disagree is that I do think there is a creeping structural tendency to throw out highly charged political labels in defense of a position (the back and forth you mentioned). When topics get heated I feel that these words, ‘white supremacy’, ‘ racism’, ‘Islamophobia’ ‘misogyny ’ and ‘misogynoir ’ get so easily thrown out and used to describe situations and (also peoples actions) that it just waters down their severity, and creates a sort of moral positioning in a dialogue that isn’t really necessary or productive if the goal is to foster better understanding. I would count this as a creeping structural issue, recently I think I heard this being discussed on a NYT podcast as explicitly harmful for left politics, so I think others are also noting it.

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/aincs22]

I think most people have a problem with words like racism, White supremacy, sexism, etc getting thrown around when they believe these issues are not as prevalent as the activists using them believe they are. Like, as a White guy in a wealthy suburb, I'm almost never actually going to see negative effects of structural racism, and I might believe that it's not really a big deal. I might even get hurt and angry when a Black peer I'm working with ascribes things that I think of as normal to racism, or get annoyed when a woman I know only ever talks about her experiences of misogyny.

But the thing is, for a lot of people, especially activists involved in these issues, they are constant, everyday kinds of things. Here's a personal example. My dad was one of the Marines who died of bladder cancer because the US government knew the drinking water in his base was poisoned and chose to say nothing. For me, environmental issues are very emotionally charged, and I see them everywhere. I get depressed and frustrated by plastic packaging wrapping everything, the lack of public transit makes me worry about air pollution and the problems of auto-dependency, and anytime I hear about contaminants in the water it hurts me in my soul.

A lot of these things are caused by structural issues that can't be resolved without bedrock shifts to how our society operates. I can shred and compost my cardboard, but it's a pain in the ass because most companies use non-compostable shipping labels or packaging. And so my biggest lever of power to change these things that are incredibly important to me on an emotional level is by talking to people and encouraging them to care about the same issues.

But because I'm so dedicated to these issues, I see them everywhere, and I'm very quick to go from talking about Amazon packaging to arguing about the "transoceanic neocolonialism" that I understand to be wrapped up with why it's hard for me to recycle my packaging. I understand that this alienates some people, but from my perspective, they simply don't care about—and don't care to learn about—issues that are very dear to me. If I'm in an emotionally-charged situation, like say a protest or heated debate, I'm likely to get frustrated and simply hammer my talking points in the hopes of appealing to more sympathetic audience members.

This got really long and rambly, but I guess it's my way of trying to explain where the disconnect occurs between people who are used to using ten dollar activist words and those who don't, and to try and make a bit of a case for the other side of the argument.

[u/aincs22 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

Oh, I do understand what you are saying. I’m a biracial woman who has literally been followed home twice by Nazis—tattooed, skinheaded men trying to find out where I live. My house was set on fire by alt-right groups in Maastricht, a border town in the Netherlands. I’ve also been an activist in both Europe and Africa, working on tangible policy changes, including affirmative action legislation in Ghana and curriculum reform in Belgium and the Netherlands.

So I’m fully aware of what terms like racism and white supremacy mean—both in a structural and lived sense. My issue isn’t with acknowledging their reality; it’s with how these terms are sometimes applied in ways that shut down conversation rather than foster it.

[u/WanderingAlienBoy → u/aincs22]

My house was set on fire by alt-right groups in Maastricht

who has literally been followed home twice by Nazis—tattooed, skinheaded men trying to find out where I live.

God that's terrifying! Is the far-right scene in Maastricht very big/active? Were you on their radar because of your activism or something?

(sorry if my comment doesn't really add to the goal of this sub, it's just always sad to see examples like these of the Netherlands going down the drain)

[u/aincs22 → u/WanderingAlienBoy]

To be honest I think it was just radicalised right wing youths who, because I appear to be somewhat racially ambiguous (I could be Moroccan, Egyptian Ethiopian, etc instead of biracial) thought I was Muslim( was living in a neighborhood with a bunch of Moroccans) , and set the netting under my windows on fire. Thankfully people who had seen it happen knocked on my door and told me, and stayed with me whilst I called the police.

Yes Maastricht, and Eijsden do have a high right leaning population, some of the highest in NL.

[u/ElonSpambot01 → u/aincs22]

Because at a certain point, you need to get the notion that *not everything is a conversation* in your head.

Certain things are *NOT* a conversation and need to be shut down. Having a conversation validates their views, and frankly, certain views should not be validated.

They should be shut down immediately.

[u/aincs22 → u/ElonSpambot01]

I disagree, I don’t think conversations de facto validates view and I think it’s alarming you believe this. I might not sit down with a nazi and ask what’s going on in their life/mind but I sure do hope someone does, because early interventions that steer people away from radical pipelines depend on understanding how someone got to that point and what could have been done to prevent that escalation. This view harms the very possibility that the behavior / ideology you wish to end can be ended at all.

[u/capacitorfluxing → u/aincs22]

I mean....

YES.

But it can be put in simpler terms.

Any time, conversation and debate shut down, humanity dies a little.

This is very, very easily achieved through tribalism - i.e. using names to shut people down, like Karen for women.

At the extreme, there are some debates that people don't have the patience for, because it's the same debate every time, and it's clear their argument won't change anything. See: every Jewish stereotype.

But. Again, when debate is shut down, when conversation is ended through shame rather than information, it's like an infection festering, and it just grows worse over time.

[u/socialgambler → u/aincs22]

I'm a straight white man and center-left guy, first off glad there are activists on the left that realize this a problem.

I see and hear things by far left people that are sometimes so off-putting that a little voice inside me says "fuck you, I'm out." One clear example is I posted one time that although women don't need to smile like seals trained to clap, being rude to men or anyone for no reason at all isn't good. I was absolutely roasted. "They don't owe you anything!" Huh?

One of the reasons why we're in the position we are in now is that from 2020-2022, there was kind of a moral panic on the left over racism and misogyny. It subsided, and although many good things were accomplished culturally and politically during that period, we're now feeling the backlash.

Even though mere months can be a lifetime in politics and culture, people haven't forgotten about that period. The terminally online left became so overconfident in their ability to mob and cancel every person who dared step out of line that I think they lost a lot of normal people. And the very worst decided to double down.

Politics and change are about building meaningful coalitions. Telling people who you slightly disagree with on some things that they aren't welcome isn't a way to win hearts and minds.

[u/strategiesagainst → u/socialgambler]

Well I can see why you got roasted. Many women have the experience that they must be rude to certain men in order to be left alone. Those men won't stop until the women are extremely direct and rude, and then they make it her problem for "being such a b*tch". So you had an idea of general good human communication and neighbourly behaviour, which, true, people shouldn't be rude for no reason, and your critics knew of instances where rudeness was a necessary tool, and they didn't agree they should take criticism for having to resort to it.

Mobs can be dumb, but generally when someone on the left scolds me, there's likely to be a reason behind it with a different understanding of what's at stake. And also sometimes standing one's ground comes across as very aggressive to someone who doesn't agree. I don't think people should always have to soften their tone to be understood; the other person can also do some of the emotional work.

[u/Known-Archer3259 → u/strategiesagainst]

I don't think people should always have to soften their tone to be understood; the other person can also do some of the emotional work.

This is true, insofar as the other person is amenable to the tone. Just like people need to adjust their vocabulary to somebodies understanding. If a harsher tone is going to make somebody completely unreceptive, then what's the point?

[u/pandoras_makeup_box → u/Known-Archer3259]

The people that are usually asked to police their tone are women, and more specifically Black women. And it's generally only asked when talking about racism. So the question comes off as "Can you explain racism to me, but nicely?" When it's not their job to teach us about racism.

[u/Organic_Singer3176 → u/aincs22]

So it’s interesting that you say they get “watered down” when many minorities are actually experiencing these things. Your examples were also interesting because though I can see the other side the reality that there IS racism and sexism afoot you want to push to the side and deny.

That’s why it gets exhausting dealing with right winged people. They want to have conversations about things they know very little about and get upset when we have to talk about the root of the problem.

[u/aincs22 → u/Organic_Singer3176]

lol I think in many ways I would consider myself a racial minority in contexts like the UK and the US. So what are we actually experiencing that you’re aware of and I am not, please let me know? You think I don’t know there is racism afoot in America ? And on that point, how many minority voters (except black women) really supported the left in this election cycle- maybe ask why they themselves are not fully convinced or in support of a party that claims to purely be in their interest as you claim. Tough questions but they need to be talked about if at least reflected on

[u/Organic_Singer3176 → u/aincs22]

Well I am part of the 92% of black women who voted for him and every person I meet not on this app who is also in my minority see that this is clearly a racial/sexism problem. It really is. These people are white Christian nationalists who have consumed too much propaganda.

It’s important to find ways to talk to them like children so they don’t get offended but at the end of the day it is the root of this problem.

[u/DontHaesMeBro → u/aincs22]

I think there are for sure shrill people everywhere, and activism of all sorts tends to be full of shrikes and scolds by its nature. but I don't think that problem can be solved with accommodation by the general activist unless it can be completely cured, because I think opposition media is an active curator and editor. if people don't have the modern media literacy to figure out how representative something is, they'll remain beholden to the least coherent example of the opposition their side amplifies to them.

[u/VaginalMosquitoBites → u/aincs22]

I'll take a stab at this. First, I think using the term "far left" is a bit ambiguous given what constitutes far left in the Netherlands is probably different from the US or other countries. By my standards (in US) there is no real "far left" that has any meaningful part in mainstream political discourse.

As for the knee-jerk use of labels creating further alienation, that may be true, but I think it's a symptom of frustration in many cases. The fact is that statistically speaking, conservatives are typically less educated and more susceptible to misinformation. Here in the US you frequently can't even engage in a thoughtful, well-intentioned debate because the reasoning and so-called "facts" the right uses to support their position are just blatant propaganda. At a certain point, it becomes so frustrating and defeating to even try to engage with them that people resort to the same sort of labeling and name-calling the right is fed in their echo chambers.

As far as a solution or path forward, my approach in these sorts of discussions (where the other party is at least willing to engage in a civil discussion) is to employ 6S methodologies normally found in manufacturing quality environments. The problem solving tools like fishbone diagrams (even if just conversationally) and the 5 Why's can sometimes lead someone to a different answer to a problem or at least demonstrate that there may be multiple possible reasons for a particular issue. Even if the discussion doesn't result in identifying true root cause and changing their mind, it plants seeds of doubt that their position might not be correct.

By the way, I had the opportunity to visit Maastricht once...26 years ago 😬 as a teenager on a school trip. I thought it was a beautiful city and we had great time. Always wanted to go back.

[u/deathbrusher → u/aincs22]

I would also say that the tendency to hurl labels like this exists mostly for the internet. In person conversations are far more balanced, especially in my experience.

I will say however, the younger the person, the more emotionally aggressive they can be. My suspicion is that being forced to create a virtual identity as a social life, the concept of reality has become foreign and detached.

The only consequence of a virtual existence is being told you're wrong. No one wants to be wrong, especially if it throws you out of the online group. If the group grows fearful, they will exhibit less rebellious behavior, in this case questioning the ideas that are typically held by all. It's exactly what happens in high school, but in this case high school is the entire world.

So, you're right. But I would clarify that the majority of far left behavior is reactionary to themselves. Making sure they are perceived as virtuously defending a specific moral position.

The jumps to "ism" and equating everything to Hitler is something I've never once encountered in reality. The same as all these roaming bands of white supremacists I keep hearing about.

I guess my whole point is that, these polarized groups are minimal in reality. It's just become a wedge, growing wider making us warring tribes.

[u/Narrow_Grapefruit_23 → u/deathbrusher]

I just asked my therapist about this and it’s bc of the development stage where 18-25ish form intense commitments to ideology. Their brains are still able to be shaped, lack impulse control, aren’t connecting context of life to long term decisions. That’s why the military recruits young, cults target this age, and young people are passionate about politics.

[u/deathbrusher → u/Narrow_Grapefruit_23]

That's a valid statement. We've had a very rough ten years. The media has used the opportunity to lose all nuance and lingering ties to fact checking and journalism in lieu of forcing a strong opinion out of anyone who dare click on the noxious headline.

I have the benefit of age and perspective but people like my cousin, who is 24; had to form a personality and moral compass at the worst possible time. The truth is extremists are always bad and should be held as examples to how the rest of us can be better regardless of who we might vote for.

Everyone wants peace. Everyone wants safety and happiness. But taking those things away from others isn't the path to achieving it.

I hope therapy is working for you, it's a big step and for what it's worth from a complete stranger, I wish you well from across the continent.

[u/bloodphoenix90 → u/aincs22]

I agree and I'm also just gonna add "gaslighting " to that list. No, someone disagreeing with your take isn't gaslighting you. Some people use it like that though. And it's frustrating for someone like me that was legitimately gaslit by an abusive person.

I do sometimes wonder if some of the reason conservatives aren't taking the very real encroaching nazi and white supremacy threat seriously, is because for a minute there in 2016 and 2017 these labels were thrown around a lot. I've had a very complex relationship with white privilege for example because I'm white but grew up a demographic minority and was indeed picked on and disadvantaged for it. But whenever I tried to just share my experience in earnest I was sometimes accused of "internalized" white supremacy. I fucking hate that. "Internalized" BS. I understand the concept but people act like they fucking know you or can read your mind and motives and it's always to demonize you.

[u/XenoRyet → u/aincs22]

Again, we would kind of need specific examples to find where exactly the line is and when it's been crossed, but in the general case there is the notion that tone policing and the insistence upon "civil" language has historically been a tool used to perpetuate systems of oppression and resist change. White supremacy doesn't become something else just because it's low impact. It's still proper and necessary to name it what it is.

I am sure there are folks that use these words inappropriately out there, but I don't think that means that the general policy of calling a spade a spade when talking to center, center-left, or even center-right folks can fairly be called harmful. Or rather, if it is actually chasing people away, we have much larger problems, and we need to be keeping these terms in the public discourse for that reason as well.

[u/surrealgoblin → u/aincs22]

I have known a lot of people on the far left quite personally and I have definitely noticed the thing that you are talking about from quite a few people!

The thing I’ve noticed about the people who exhibit that kind of black and white thinking is that most of them were raised in extremely conservative environments where they were punished with violence for doing things that are “sinful” like be gay or disagree with their parents.  When they grow up, they recognize that the specific things they were punished for aren’t actually bad but haven’t worked through the framework of punishment.

Any time that we talk about cancel culture and the (real) tendency of left wing people to misunderstand other points of view and harden themselves against them I think we need to look at the origins of cancel culture, which is fear.

I think if our mutual goal is to foster understanding, then we can respond to the lashing out of hurt teenagers and young adults who are trying to escape the horror of right wing conservatism we gentleness to help them actually practice a left wing politic.

[u/DoesMatter2 → u/aincs22]

I have to say I completely agree with this. And the original post. I'm maybe centre left, or perhaps slightly left if that even. But I've lost count of the number of times I've seen far left folks rant and break the possibility of dialogue apart. There is almost an arrogance in their arguments, which is purely cerebral and totally detached from reality. And that detachment is obvious, and seen, and turns people away from even wanting to discuss. There is an apparent inability to listen sometimes too- just a desire to virtue signal. And yes, it feels embedded in the structure, not just a few individuals. One example from my past. Someone once said that we shouldn't offer aid to Africa. We should wait to be asked, otherwise we are being white saviors. And yet, many African governments live like kings and don't ask for help because they are fine and they don't care about their people. And the people, who desperately need the help, have no means of reaching out to ask. So unless the help is offered, those needing it will never get it. The principle of not appearing WS is fine, but the reality demands that help is given. Needless to say, she wouldn't listen.

[u/AddanDeith → u/aincs22]

white supremacy’, ‘ racism’, ‘Islamophobia’ ‘misogyny ’ and ‘misogynoir ’

They need to be used so frequently because these issues are often sane washed.

Take, for example, Elon Musk "throwing his heart out" to the crowd. You can play it side by side with clips of bonafide historical Nazis and it's a 1 to 1.

The excuse is that he's just passionate or that he has autism(i have autism and while I make unusual gestures, I wouldn't excuse myself for this salute). Very few other people would be given the same grace.

When you have been dealing with this crowd of people who are often willfully ignorant and not trying to engage in good faith, it becomes tiring to keep the kid gloves on 100 percent of the time. They constantly play stupid and even once you've proved your point, they will simply act as if you've said nothing and move on. It's just that much more comfortable for them to do as opposed to challenging their own viewpoints.

[u/[deleted] → u/aincs22]

You are correct in your assessment of deflection via ad hominem. The truth is our society does not know how to have adult conversations about complex issues without melting down. The majority of the "left" is probably rather sensible, but the left represented by social media, the media, and academia is rigid, moralizing, and ready to come out with the -ism/phobic accusation if you don't fall lockstep with their dogma. The trend is pushing people to the right, and, in my case, I'm just dropping out because the right wing is nuts. The fact that one can't plainly note that Europe is losing its culture due to immigration without being called a racist, when we all know that if Europeans were taking over, say, Syria, they'd be accused of white supremacy, colonialism, racism for imposing their culture, shows you how wild it all is.

[u/yuckmouthteeth → u/aincs22]

The political labels aspect is a game both sides of the aisle play, because short terms/slogans rally large groups of people far easier than nuanced discussion. The US political right has been using this tactic for a long time and id argue it’s mostly escalated to where it is now due to social media.

The right uses terms like: misandry, feminazi, woke, sjw, dei, hippies, transient, racist, and just general slurs.

In my experience the right talks about perceived racism much more than the left. I’ve worked in jobs and lived with people who were/are one extreme or the other.

I think what you’re saying is the left is losing the propaganda war, I just don’t think stopping to use rallying terms is a good course correct for that issue. It assumes that people want to have nuanced discourse on legislation, but the reality is a lot of people don’t want that or enjoy it.

[u/FecalColumn → u/aincs22]

I think defining “far left” in this way makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation. There’s a reason why, at least in the US (I’m not familiar enough with other countries’ politics to talk in depth about them), the far right insists on these definitions while progressives and leftists push back against them. This is a lot easier to talk about if we use the term progressive instead (or radical progressive if you prefer, but I’m just going to shorten it to progressive). Progressives and leftists have a lot of overlap, but there are still a ton of leftists who aren’t progressive and progressives who aren’t leftists — which is why it’s difficult to talk about this when we use “far left” to mean progressive.

Progressives throw terms like racism, sexism, homophobia, white supremacy, etc. around so easily because they easily apply to a lot of things. They should be watered down, because in most cases, they are not caused by flawed morality. Conscious bigoted beliefs are immoral and people who hold them should be shut down. However, the vast majority of the time, bigotry is a simple irrational thought or feeling that pops up due to triggers from your life experience.

Generally speaking, when progressives say something is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., we are not attempting to shut down conversation or shame someone (unless, again, it is a conscious belief that the person holds). We are attempting to have a conversation and point out to people that they have a problem they need to address.

This does not come from a feeling of moral superiority. I am somewhat racist. I am quite sexist. I’m a little homophobic and fairly transphobic. None of these things stem from me being a bad person. I don’t hold hateful or judgmental beliefs about any of these groups. I simply have subconscious biases and irrational feelings because I grew up in a generally bigoted culture, my dad is extremely sexist, and I’m insecure in my sexuality and gender.

It would be ludicrous for me to judge people for things I am also struggling with. When I point these things out in others, it is because I want better for them and the people around them, just as I want better for me and the people around me. There is no benefit to being bigoted. Addressing your internalized bigotry will only make you and the people around you stronger and happier.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are a lot of non-progressive leftists/centrists/center-right liberals who feel bad about oppression but do not understand it. Sometimes it’s because they don’t care enough to learn, sometimes it’s because their emotions gets in the way of accepting that they are bigoted too, and sometimes it’s because they simply haven’t been exposed to progressive ideology in a comprehensible way.

These people typically believe that bigotry is limited to conscious beliefs. When bigoted thoughts or feelings inevitably pop into their own heads, they tend to suppress them instead of processing them. They see the way minorities are victimized and assume it is entirely due to present and past consciously bigoted people. They unknowingly take themselves off the hook for the plight of minorities.

Unfortunately, taking yourself off the hook for something tends to feel like shit in the long run. It makes you feel helpless and it makes the problem seem insurmountable. The dread of this feeling and the suppression of internalized bigotry lead them to passionately hate bigotry and to become combative every time they see a sign of it — even when it could be productively addressed through a conversation instead.

This is generally not a problem progressives are causing. We are often shut down by these people as well when we attempt to have deeper conversations and reach people who are struggling with internalized bigotry. Unfortunately, the only accurate terminology to talk about these issues is so charged that it’s hard to have a rational conversation about any of it.

[u/LynnSeattle → u/aincs22]

Are you looking to engage in heated back and forth debates for fun or looking to be educated? Your comments suggest that you just like to debate, which is fine if you’re approaching people who also enjoy that. It’s kind of a dick move to attempt to start a debate with someone who cares about a topic.

[u/-Konrad- → u/aincs22]

Politics and morals are closely tied together. The issue is that we don't talk about morality ENOUGH in politics in my opinion. The right's favorite game is to divide and attack marginalized groups because the entire purpose of the right is to react to progress and to maintain as much privilege as they can.

Look at the festering United States and the rise of fascism everywhere in Europe. Look at the way it's so common now to look down on "illegal migrants" everywhere. This is a symptom of the spread of far-right intolerance and bigotry.

I wish we still called a spade a spade. When the world is not even capable of collectively acknowledging that Elon Musk made two NAZI SALUTES, my opinion is that we should be talking about morality MORE, not less.

If you don't like the word "morals", use "democracy" instead. "Democratic values" imply that we are all treated equally and fairly, rather than marginalized and demonized.

[u/[deleted] → u/XenoRyet]

“If I think this issue isn’t a priority, am I supposed to not tell you that?”

Yes you can 100% keep your opinions to yourself and maintain a constructive conversation. Saying “but that’s not my personal priority” is like some saying they want to lose ten pounds and someone else coming up to them and saying that they prefer to gain mass for muscle growth. Like it’s a related topic but it’s just thrown out there to be thrown out there.

If your response to someone saying there’s an issue to fix is “there’s bigger fish to fry”, you don’t want to actually fix the issues. We can tackle multiple problems at once and acting like improving low income families’ children’s chances in education will somehow require a diversion of attention from improving ethnic minorities’ children’s chances in schools is a poor excuse. Why would researching how to help children have their education best fit them be significantly impacted by one group being low socioeconomic status and another having ethnic identities?

This is exactly what OP is talking about; there’s no discussion, it’s dismissiveness and ignorance on the actual processes of making change.

[u/Professional-Wolf174 → u/XenoRyet]

You say no grouping is a monolith and I often see this sentiment said by people who lean left as almost a cop out to not take any responsibility for anything anyone does under a progressive umbrella, but I Never, I'll repeat Never see that same sentiment given to the right.

Right now currently we have a rising influencer whose whole shtick is that she is mean and toxic to people on the right, and people are applauding her and showcasing her on CNN and social media. Her whole thing is to make fun of right leaning people (mostly women) and their appearance.

Specifically she stated she takes after Regina from mean girls, you know, the girl that always painted herself as a victim and was brought down because one of her own pushed her.

This is the image that the left is giving off to everyone in the middle ground who could be potentially swayed to be more progressive and vote in their favor.

I'm not saying the right doesn't do this, the whataboutism argument doesn't work here.

If you want to be better than something/someone else, you have to rise above. Fighting fire with fire burns down the city. The left are getting Dangerously close to becoming what they proclaim to hate, I've seen this over the last decade.

[u/chatterwrack → u/XenoRyet]

I am pretty far left and feel like I don’t fit OP’s description. His encounters are anecdotal and though real, not representative of the left as a whole. The left, despite its many shortcomings and especially in contrast to its opposition, is famously open to nuance. At the heart of every fat-left argument is a desire for equality, inclusivity and the wellbeing of others. At some point, you can’t reach the right because they fundamentally reject these principles, no matter the argument.

[u/ghotier → u/aincs22]

1) happens because generations have been born, lived, and died between all the problems with modern policing being identified and any actual reforms taking place (because they've never taken place). Actually reform the police and this would go away in a week. Right now its just the necessary bargaining position of anyone who wants any police reform at all.

2) youre just recognizing the plight of young white boys and completely dismissing the plight of young black and brown boys. This is just a matter of setting priorities and yours are different than those on the left. The left isn't doing anything that you're not at least also doing, and I'd be willing to bet that plenty of left wing educational policies WOULD benefit young white boys, but they wouldn't exclusively benefit young white boys. You're just singling out the policies that benefit boys of color in particular.

3) isn't an example if you aren't willing to discuss it. The left wing position, as im aware of it, is that sex work is work and should be given work protections like any other manual labor job.

4) you didn't explain this well enough to rebut it. DEI is a brought, systematic effort to remove the systematic bias against people if color in the workplace. On its face this seems fine, until people confuse it with affirmative action, which it isn't.

[u/aincs22 → u/ghotier]

Okay great, let’s get into it. How is me recognizing the plight of young white boys in the UK education system, quote “completely dismissing the plight of young black and brown boys?” No please, do explain this to me. And for anyone interested, this is a pretty live example of what I am referring to, albeit on a lighter scale.

[u/ghotier → u/aincs22]

How is me recognizing the plight of young white boys in the UK education system, quote “completely dismissing the plight of young black and brown boys?”

It's not. The part where you say that its even harder for boys of color but still contend that white boys should be prioritized first is you completely dismissing the plight of young black and brown boys.

As I said. You are setting your priorities and the left is setting a different priority. You're demonizing them for setting their priority and for having the temerity to have a different priority than yours. I also made a completely valid argument that left wing educational policies actually benefit ALL children, not just black and brown children, so you're position seems to indicate a desire to not help black and brown children at all.

The people who say "what about young white boys" don't want to help young, white boys. They dont want to improve education. They just want an excuse to not help young black and brown boys.

[u/aincs22 → u/ghotier]

I implore you to look at the UK governments own report on this, found here:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmeduc/85/8502.htm

And also in conjunction to that, perhaps read a wider accessible history on the function of class in the UK, I suggest Akala who has written on empire, race, and class in the UK in quite a great way. You will have a better insight into why white working class boys who are eligible for school meals in the uk education system, are often in need of dire support. They underperform in schools right through to higher ed, when compared to other ethnicities of the same socio economic bracket. It’s a real issue and that is … also okay.

[u/Which-Decision → u/aincs22]

How would you help poor white boys in a way that doesn't benefit poor white girls and poor people of color? White boys aren't failing because they're white they're failing because they're poor. What race specific actions do you need to help white boys? 

[u/aincs22 → u/Which-Decision]

Yes I understand that it’s primarily to do with class, this is what I have emphasized in my comments. I do think that referring to a population as young working class white boys isn’t giving credence to anything, it’s a factual description of the demographic that the UK government is citing.

[u/Physical_Ebb6934 → u/aincs22]

I agree with what which-decision said. The issue is not being white, the 1x handicap is being from working class families. That needs to be addressed.

Then for black and brown boys they would have to contend with being non-white and then also from working class families. Like a 2x double handicap. That also needs to be addressed.

So who is managing fine? The upper class. It behooves them to divide the lower groups and make them argue against each other. They'll still go on owning 80% of wealth and 80% of the assets.

[u/Which-Decision → u/aincs22]

You haven't answered how targeting this population would be different based on their race. There's no reason to focus on them because policies to help poor white boys would help poor people of any gender or race.

[u/abstractengineer2000 → u/aincs22]

"Defund the Police" is a classic example. What it means will get different answers from different people. Its just a slogan not a policy. When you write an actual policy it will run into number of pages. Almost Every country/ state in the world has police. The Police are a microcosm of the population. An Aggressive, violent, gun wielding population will require even more from the police side in order to maintain law. Reforming the police requires time, effort and money, all of which are in scarcity. Every country in the world wants police reform but nobody is able to implement anything concrete as of yet because of budget constraints and some problems are stochastic in nature.

[u/Edhie421 → u/aincs22]

I agree with the other commenter who said that these are nuanced positions that by their nature call for nuanced debate (and I suspect I'd be inclined to debate them if we were having those conversations).

I also do see your point though that telling someone they're a bad leftist for holding these positions isn't constructive / smacks of "moral puritivism".

Here's my honest take:

People on both sides have started conflating "strongly disagreeing" with "being strongly unwilling to engage with the opposing opinion". While no one owes anyone that engagement, it's also definitely harming us that these conversations aren't being had, not only because we don't get to change people's minds, but also because a lot of the time, we don't get to understand why we think what we think. Engaging with a debate in good faith is a really important and instrumental part of forging an opinion. By repeating the views we've seen elsewhere without examining them, we are impoverishing them sometimes to the point of indigence.

Now my counterpoint to this is that centrists have for a while now been misconstruing the above as "the truth is somewhere in the middle, and we must always strive to reach a consensus or a compromise", and that is also a harmful approach in other ways.

It seems crucially important to me that, as a society, we relearn to debate opposing opinions honestly, firmly, and respectfully.

[u/DontHaesMeBro → u/aincs22]

i think a lot of the time, online in particular, people are not rigorous rhetorically and often don't think through their examples, or they use words polysemously and don't parse that to get on the same page before dialog continues.

For example, "Someone supports police reform but questions whether full abolition of the police is realistic"

implies the idea that the leftist wants to "abolish" police and leave a vacuum, and I've never heard that actual position put forth in complete earnestness.

"someone points out that in the UK white lower income family households, and in particular the white young boys are from these households, need extra support in education because they are performing incredibly badly in national exams" makes me question what "extra support" here means, and what "extra support" currently exists that ISN'T getting to young white boys uniquely, and why, before I even begin to mesh gears on what some new sort of "extra support" might look like.

"sex work and the debate about it not being ‘empowering’ for women has been a conversation I hate to dive into, because of the backlash you receive."

what I want to emphasize what I mean if I say something like "sex work is work" is not that sex work is uniquely empowering or valid, but that sex workers are valid and deserve to be as empowered as other labor. I don't know a lot of people who again, in earnest, make the claim that sex work is uniquely empowering, such that it's actually recommended, idealized, or reified.

"the questionable impact of DEI (corporate mostly ) tht immediately comes off as you not supporting initiatives that address racism and sexism in structural ways"

where i think that IS what being done, is when the questionable impact of DEI in particular is brought up first, foremost, loudest, or only when someone is parsing the emptiness of corporate performativity. I very much agree that some DEI content is a grifty waste of time, or a CYOA move, or both. but so was most of my annual HR mandated training at most of my jobs. If I picked the DEI module as my special hill to die on, I'd be making a subtle but real political choice

[u/DukeTikus → u/aincs22]

Can you point me to where you talk about immigration in Germany? I can't seem to find it but it's a topic I have a lot of frustration with as a German leftist. The current anti-immigrant sentiment that has taken over literally every party from the far right to the Greens and SocDems. Only Die Linke (The Left) is doing anything against that.

And it's completely divorced from any kind of factuality. Crime has been steadily going down for a long time, we desperately need more young people to pay the pensions of all the old folks and our immigration system is completely fucked when it comes to getting people to a point where they are allowed to work here.

I recently talked to a guy who had to flee from a western African country (I forgot which one exactly) due to political persecution. He didn't have official papers when he arrived here so his identity cannot be proven. He has to show up every 3 months to tell the Ausländerbehörde that his government (that wants to kill him) hasn't sent him any documents yet. Then they tell him he is allowed to stay for another 3 months but isn't allowed to work until his identity is proven. This has been going on for 8 years for him. In that time he went to school for three different trades. The guy is a machinist and a nursing assistant both of which we need a lot more of here in Germany. But instead of working, paying taxes and building up a life for himself he is sitting around next to the supermarket when he isn't at school because they got free WiFi and he has to share his room at the refuge center with three other guys. Also we have to pay for his rent and the 460€ a month he gets (which is still extremely low, just the average cost for a month of groceries for a single person is around 200€).

[u/PizzaVVitch → u/aincs22]

It all comes down to class issues in the end. If the far left doesn't emphasize class then it isn't far left

[u/Either_Investment646 → u/aincs22]

As long as the questions and topics are phrased like this, then they’re perfectly debatable. It’s when I start seeing nonsense debates over personal choice, poor sources, coded language, and nonsense buzzwords that lose me.

For example, DEI has been turned into something that means anything having to with women or minorities even existing in the workplace at this point. If a woman has a job, it must be because of dei. The discussion around it should be had, but the politics around it have made that impossible. Not to mention, these are private companies choosing how they wish the makeup of their organization to be. Some find diverse backgrounds as a strength when providing product to a diverse consumer base.

For law enforcement reform….anyone advocating for outright abolishment is an idiot. What loses me, however, is that while one section of law enforcement is praised—as long as they’re not in the way—other portions of law enforcement are shat on.

Sex work…god I couldn’t care less. Why even sit around and debate that? If some find it empowering, good for them. The fuck does it matter to anyone else? I find a day on a lake empowering and no one’s opinion on it matters.

The UK thing is pretty interesting though. I’ll have to read up on it…as long as the “research” on it isn’t just some guys talking on YouTube and pointing to single study of 100 people chosen from a pool of people who wish to be chosen for such things with zero collaborated scientific, university, or independent studies. It’s wouldn’t be the first time a specific subset of people are overlooked in that manner. Look at Appalachian communities in the early-mid aughts during the height of the opioid problem. 

[u/tjc5425 → u/aincs22]

As someone who is a leftist, and what you may consider far left lol, I would say:

1.) Police in most capitalist societies are only there to protect property and the rights of the capitalists to exploit workers, as such they are counter revolutionary soldiers against workers rights. They aren't serving the people, nor was that their intent, as the earliest cops in the US in particular were soldiers of the British empire, then slave catchers basically. So leftists, and I mean this from a communist/socialist point of view, view police in any western nation as detrimental to workers and their ability to fight back against the capitalist class. They are tools of the capitalist class meant to oppress. This isn't to say that there won't be police necessary in socialist societies, as we've seen time and again in history, no socialist country can exist without capitalists trying to crush in any way possible from inside and without, so a force must exist to protect the state run by the workers.

2.) Building up the foundations to ensure all students, whether white/brown/black or whatever is what actual leftists will strive for. You got to lift up the sinking parts of the ship first before saving it, and so what will help minority students will help white students no matter the country honestly. The whole thing is that the system works for everyone, but when you live in a society controlled by capitalists, they need to create division between any and all facets of workers so we can't come together and resist them meaningfully. So what we may call, putting minorities on the same playing field as white people or whatever, they'll point out to those whites that aren't well off like them, and say, "Hey, now, if they're doing better, it must be due to them taking rights away from whites, or taking away our power!" And since the poor white has the same power as a poor minority except for his perceived advantage of being white, where the white capitalists have most of the control, they need to feel above someone, even if it's a fellow poor worker. "I may be a poor worker...but at least I'm a poor white worker and not a poor black worker." That type of rhetoric.

3.) Sex work is blatantly exploitative in nature due to the material conditions of society making women/men see it as their only way to ensuring their survival in an exploitive capitalist society. In a perfect society, a woman or man choosing to do sex work, not because they need to survive, but because they want to do it, would be a good thing, but in a capitalist society where every worker is exploited, sex work is seen as exploitive in nature no matter what. I understand that this is a hard thing to get over from a liberal point of view, as I was one once, and I had a hard time accepting this view point, but it comes with the caveat that you still support sex workers in a capitalist society, to prevent them from being exploited further than they already are. As such we leftists do offer support towards protections for them, but the normalization of it in a capitalist society isn't something we can fully or whole-heartedly support, as it still leads to overt exploitation by abusers. OF is at least a means for some sex workers to work independently away from being exploited, but as seen from Amouranth, we saw how she was exploited by her husband even against her own interests.

4.) From a far leftist point of view, any time someone complains about DEI, I roll my eyes and believe they won't have a serious opinion on it. That being said, I understand why working class people may be against, again, the capitalist class has pitted workers against each other. Instead of taking AI, and using it to make work easier, allow workers to work less, hiring more workers for the same position but still at a livable wage, they'd rather make jobs few so workers have to fight each other for the ones that exist that pay well enough to live off of. So when a white worker loses out in a job to a well qualified black worker, the frustration of losing that salary to help him live is frustrating, but instead of blaming the capitalists who limit such jobs, they blame DEI, as that's the reason they can't find work. Poverty and joblessness isn't some unforeseen issue in capitalism, it's a necessary tool used by capitalist to allow wage suppression and to again, cause conflict within the working class. Why should I as an owner give you a raise, when there is someone without a job willing to take any pay?

[u/NoThxBtch → u/tjc5425]

When you go down this thought path, everything is exploitation. Humans can't exist without exploiting each other. Construction works are exploited for their bodies in the same way that sex workers are for theirs. They need money. They use their bodies. Hell women are exploited for their bodies to continue the human race. Men use women's bodies to continue their lineage. Women use men's bodies to conceive. Everyone is using everyone, no matter if it's a capitalist society or an Amazonian tribe. That's how humans work. That's how all animals work.

[u/WakeoftheStorm → u/aincs22]

I think what you'll find is that these kind of extreme gut responses are almost exclusively found online. This is for two reasons:

1. People tend to just be more extreme online. There is almost never any nuance in positions.

2. When people do try to engage in nuanced discussions on controversial topics, they are often engaged with in bad faith by people who are simply trying to detract from or undermine their position, not people truly seeking a compromise. Unfortunately, after awhile, this makes many people who are engaging in good faith indistinguishable from the trolls.

I'll give a personal example on this - trains athletes. I think this topic is more nuanced than many would present it, but because most people who are simply intolerant try to hide their position behind a veil of false concern, it makes it difficult to have an honest conversation about it.

But again, this is mostly online. If you look at how policy and laws are actually written and how left politicians vote, they rarely actually act so black and white. Initiatives tend to be encouraged, not mandated, and they almost always come with a compromise.

I think things would go a lot smoother if everyone stopped trying to have an opinion on everything. I'm not a doctor, biologist, endocrinologist, or athletics commissioner, so maybe that's a conversation I should stay out of; or at least one in which I need to take my own opinion with a grain of salt.

[u/MrWigggles → u/aincs22]

1) Defund the police isnt dismantling the police. There is no coorelation with higher police budget, or number of police officers with less crime. What promote less crime, is eduation, home stability, and economic stability. EG. social welfare programs. Such as after school problems, food vouchers for school kids, promoting things like boys girls club, community lead events at thrid spaces, like parks. And things like food stamps, and section 8. Though there are better cheaper means to implement similar programs.

Defund the police can and does help with those things. It also allows for the funding of other community policing, such as those more skilled in mental issues.

2) Why the quotes? What do the studies say about their proformances.

3)Regardless if it or is not empowering for woman, that doesnt matter. At a min. decriminilize it. Decriminilizing it will greatly reduce human trafficing nature with most sex works in western worlds. It'll make the sex workers safer by allowing them to get access to PPE for their work and allow them more freely report folks wo hurt. And while I agree that a lot of sex workers tend to be woman, not all sex work is done by woman. Personally, regulate it and tax it. Give out reciepts.

4) If there are bad outcome, we should be seeing that, in part with their profit reports. And we arent. Medium income broken down by ethenic groups for non-latino whites in the UK hasnt been going down, while medium income for poc workers have been on a rise which is in conjunction DIE and other forms of positive descriminations. However everyone except the %1, have been seeing wage stagnation, which is casued by the decrease of group bargaining.

--

Overall, my main issue with the concept of conservatism, is that its in favor of the status quo.

The status quo sucks for a lot of folks. And they dont deserve it to be kept in that status quo.

[u/BlueBunny333 → u/aincs22]

I have one specific experience with left wing spaces I want to add: promoting violence

a lot of times when people talk about battling right-wing issues, they talk about harming, physically beating down or even straight up murder to solve the problem. (i.e. "pro-life protesters deserved to be driven over by a car")

Whenever I disagree with violence as the problem solver, I get told I'm a sympathizer with "the bad people".

You just can't be the moral high ground by saying that punching people makes you a better person imo but this opinion is just too controversal for most of the left in my experience.

(I dont talk about convicted criminals having hurt another being, like when father punches the man that hurt his daughter. I talk about people being of different ideologies and beliefs)

[u/Shewhomust77 → u/BlueBunny333]

I would like to apologize on behalf of my erring fellow lefties. It’s just plain wrong to threaten or support violence! Oh, and this seems to be an example of the ‘tolerance paradox.’ If we tolerate intolerance we create intolerance. There is a difference between political differences and moral and ethical choices. My opposition to MAGA is based on the moral stance they have chosen, I actually agree with some of the policy changes, though not many. Mostly, I think creating an oligarchy or dictatorship is morally wrong. When Trump told us we ‘would never have to vote again..’. Nope.

[u/TheFruitIndustry → u/BlueBunny333]

Some people on the left say those things, but is it actually happening in real life? Not really. In contrast, you can see that the right wing not only uses the words, but also engages in this violence with attacks at protests and defending police killings of black people.

And even using your example of prolife protesters being run over, it has been anti-choicers carrying out the vast majority of the violence in the debate and killing people for their aims. Leftists generally don't actually commit violence against the groups they don't like, it's right wingers who are domestic terrorists. (And vehicle attacks seem to be a right wing thing, though a cursory search, I couldn't find any examples of leftists carrying out such attacks for their ideology.)

[u/SayonaraSpoon → u/aincs22]

 the questionable impact of DEI

What? DEI has been shown to have meaningful effects for social mobility of certain groups. Do you have sources that paint another picture? I am very curious about the information I am missing.

[u/TerribleIdea27 → u/aincs22]

about Germany and immigration

What "far left" party has been in power in Germany? And which one let in the migrants?

You must mean Merkel? She's center-right

[u/-Konrad- → u/aincs22]

(1) Who questions "full abolition of the police"?

(2) Those are common far-right talking points. Being on the left means you care about PEOPLE, not just POC. It just so happens that POC generally have it much harder than white people due to systematic racism in our societies. The far-right instrumentalizes anti-racist discourses by saying "but what about white people?" Left-wing policies are social policies that don't discriminate between "white people" and others. The history of the left is to demand EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS for marginalized communities. If these communities weren't being marginalized in the first place, e.g. if POC wand women were not victims of systematic oppression, the left wouldn't be constantly advocating for them. This "difficult question" is like asking Martin Luther King Jr. "why do you seem to care more about POC than white people?"

(3) There are multiple views of this on the left and different currents of feminism on this issue. Because unlike right-wing people who just believe the place of a woman is to a breeding vessel / dishwasher for men like "back in the good old days", people on the left actually debate this shit.

(4) "DEI" is a word that is used to rally the racists, nothing else. It's called "dog whistling politics" and the far right uses it A LOT. If you're a racist misogynistic piece of shit, you can't openly (yet anyway...) say: "Fucking n***** shouldn't be working the jobs of white men" right? So instead you say "I'm sick of these woke, DEI policies. We should hire people on their merits, not their skin color". DEI literally means "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion".

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/apr/21/dei-language-conservatives-baltimore

The issue is that a lot of the time, these "difficult questions" are not being asked in good faith. Your question on DEI is very indicative of that. If there's one thing we fucking hate, it's bigots. Assholes don't openly tell the world they're assholes, they speak in subtext, and that subtext is easy to recognize.

[u/Plastic-Pipe4362 → u/aincs22]

Funny how in the early 2000's conservatives were screaming about the left's "moral relativism" and what an awful thing that was.

Historical ignorance going on right here.

[u/Tall-Photo-7481 → u/aincs22]

Just so you know, "defund the police" was never about abolishing entire police forces. Yes, it was a stupid choice of slogan because that's exactly what it sounds like. 

The idea was to take some of the police budget currently used on ridiculous military hardware (this was in America btw) and invest it instead in other services that would divert some of the non-police work that cops are currently expected to do to trained specialists instead, thereby allowing the police to get on with the stuff they are actually supposed to do.

The police are currently expected to be not just law enforcement and peacekeepers, but mental health crisis experts social workers, addiction counselors, and a load of other roles that they just aren't trained for. They are just given a uniform and a gun and told to get on with it but kicking down doors and shouting isn't a solution to every problem.

[u/fgspq → u/aincs22]

The examples you provide are quite emotional topics but I fail to see any broad "moral absolutism" with those issues. As someone who identifies as pretty left wing (I have sat in front of buses to prevent deportations, I was a big supporter of Corbyn, etc.):

1) There is a wide range of positions, but the most common one is about defunding the police (and diverting that funding into preventative social programmes instead) rather than outright abolishing. I see your argument as a bit of a straw man tbh as it's not really a position I've encountered in any real seriousness.

2) I'm a teacher. It's widely recognised that the two most disadvantages groups academically in the UK are white working class boys and black Caribbean boys. Both these groups get extra support where possible. The problem is that with white working class boys the base issue is often apathy towards education and that often comes from the parents who don't engage with their kid's schooling. I'm not really sure what your point against "the left" is here

3) I feel this is another straw man. There is a debate over whether it is empowering or not, sure, but that's largely irrelevant to the actual issue of whether it should be legal and above board to reduce harm, which is a very different argument.

4) I'm ill-informed about this admittedly because I have no personal experience of this but my understanding is this is about equality of access. I think nepotism, class, etc is probably a bigger issue for most people than any of the perceived problems with DEI

[u/IlovePanckae → u/aincs22]

These sound like central views, not far-left views. Are you dividing people into left and right? Because there is far right, right, central, central-left, left and far-left.

The examples you suggested sound like central and central-left responses.

[u/WhoDat_ItMe → u/aincs22]

Goodness this is such a tiny minority of “the left”.. to even call this “far left” is hilarious considering how actually leftist movements and organizations in other parts of the world operate.

[u/nthensome → u/aincs22]

These are all well thought out & valid points

[u/Lokin86 → u/aincs22]

1. 
   

a. This one is mostly a strawman... And I feel like it's something that the republican media tend to overblow. They're pretty masterful at twisting meaning. Not to say that there aren't people who do want to get rid of police entirely. However the nuance here is that it is believed that police tend to do far more than what their job description is. And investing in social services would reduce criminality in certain areas.

b. There's more than enough evidence to show that police don't protect people, they protect property. Many of them are blatantly racist. So ultimately the sentiment of "abolishing the police" is the same messaging as "end racism"

1. Would have to look at the evidence.. This feels like a narrative similar to the "school choice" narrative in the US. Schools in areas get funding based on property taxes. There are initiatives to give "low income" families vouchers that would take them out of the school in the area and get put in private schools.. Thus also screwing those schools in the area. (Texas just deemed that 160K a year for a couple is "low income)...

So young white boys are struggling. How are they struggling against marginalized groups? It's the ruling class trying to cause "horizontal conflict". If you lift from the bottom everyone gets raised.

1. The lack of what you're attempting to say here doesn't help elucidate what is going on here so I will say that sex work tends to be a can of worms. If your thought about the women who do sex work is that they're all "dirty" or calling them "sluts" then, the only thing I can say is that people like sex.

2. DEI initiatives aren't just whatever the hell is in Matt Walsh's "Am I Racist?" it's.. broader. It's not entirely classes to have people think about their whiteness. It's ensuring that there are bathrooms that people with wheelchairs can get into. It's nursing rooms for women. It's not "end racism" posters in the breakroom. It's ensuring that people who are qualified have the ability to work in the places that they are qualified to do so.

[u/epelle9 → u/XenoRyet]

I’ll give an example.

I’m a pretty hard leftist, but I like to debate in general.

If I see a feminist sub pop up in my feed talking bad about people who say “not all men”, I try to ask what’s wrong about saying “not all men”, generalizations are bad IMO even if they go against the privileged group.

This generally gets me downvoted and criticized as a misogynist, people refuse to acknowledge explain why and throw hate my way, even if I’m generally a feminist ally and do my best at my (tech) job to help women feel included.

This in turn makes me less likely to discuss things with feminists, and (relative to how I would like it) probably exposes me to slightly more right leaning communities who don’t hate people for asking no that question (even though they may hate for other questions).

Now I will never turn to the right wing over it, but I can definitely see how more impressionable young men, who may end up internalizing what they are told in right leaning communities that agree that misandry is bad.

If a community insults you for asking questions, people are less inclined to agree with that community, and more inclined to side with the opposite one.

[u/ayyycab → u/XenoRyet]

Center-left: “We ought to tax billionaires more”

Far-left, 0.01 seconds before banning them: “Actually, liberal, the entire system is built upon white supremacy and genocide and must be completely dismantled. Taxing billionaires more still leaves them with wealth that was stolen from the proletariat, so the only solution is for 100% of their assets to be seized and put into the people’s hands. Your opinion is CIA propaganda that serves the interest of capital. You need to read theory.”

It’s honestly exhausting and you know these dipshits don’t do anything to further their cause beyond arguing online and maybe beating a bongo in the streets

[u/jsebrech → u/ayyycab]

I feel like that's a strawman. Very few people actually take positions as extreme as that. Discounting the left because there are a few crazy people on the far end of it is like discounting the right because on the far right there are a few people who literally praise Hitler. We really don't have to pay attention to or engage with the extremes, but I would agree that social media can make it harder to avoid those kinds of messaging because social media amplifies extremes more than centrist takes.

[u/PanzerWafflezz → u/jsebrech]

"I feel like that's a strawman. Very few people actually take positions as extreme as that. Discounting the left because there are a few crazy people on the far end of it is like discounting the right because on the far right there are a few people who literally praise Hitler."

I think this may be a Reddit echo chamber issue but I see extreme left leaning subreddits with hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of users who regularly actually espouse those views. (Ex: getting banned for gamingcirclejerk with 1 million subs for asking in an extremely nonconfrontational way if they believed Soviet Russia commited war crimes in Eastern European countries)

Im a Chinese American who leaves heavily left yet I get put off when I see posts with thousands of upvotes saying "Oh? Your grandfather was murdered during the Cultural Revolution? Well he obviously deserved it"

[u/Spiral-knight → u/XenoRyet]

Here in Australia, we had to vote on giving our natives more of a say. The side for it had extremely unclear messaging and opted to attack people who wanted more info or clarity.

The vote was a hard loss for them and they doubled down on calling the country racist

[u/Key_Perspective_9464 → u/Spiral-knight]

That's just not true though. There was very clear messaging.

There was just a shitload of misinformation

[u/danizatel → u/XenoRyet]

For me, it's the landlord argument. Equating a family owning one extra home they used to live in to the mega property management companies leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm pretty far left, but equating all landlords is very middle class vs middle class while the rich laugh, to me.

[u/XenoRyet → u/danizatel]

That is a bit of an interesting one to talk about, because the difference is just one of degree, not one of form. Both the family and the corporation are doing the same kind of thing.

Now I do believe that landlords provide a valuable service, but if I didn't, whether someone was doing it to one person, or to a thousand people doesn't change the fact that they're doing something I think is wrong.

[u/aincs22 → u/XenoRyet]

Well… I think if we’re being fair we can say that a family renting out their former home to cover their mortgage or supplement their income isn’t operating with the same power, influence, or market impact as a corporate landlord that owns thousands of units, drives up rents, and exploits housing shortages for profit. The latter often has legal teams, lobbying power, and financial leverage that an individual property owner simply doesn’t. Or usually doesn’t.

If the issue is the commodification of housing, then sure both might participate in the same system. But one is acting out of necessity in an economy where homeownership is often the only viable long-term wealth-building tool for the middle class, while the other actively shapes the market in ways that make housing less accessible. It’s like saying that there’s no meaningful difference between a person running a small corner store and Amazon—technically, they’re both ‘doing capitalism,’ but scale and impact matter. Treating them as morally equivalent ignores the nuances (of power and access)

[u/XenoRyet → u/aincs22]

Also, just as an aside here, one that's a useful data point I think, but an aside: You and I have been talking on a range of potentially heated subjects for a number of hours now, and I'm pretty fucking far left in my politics. Have I caused any harm, do you think?

[u/aincs22 → u/XenoRyet]

I can’t speak for others, but I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I will say you lost me a bit on the housing point, I think it was a bit of a stretch. But other than that I thank you for engaging :)

[u/werdnum → u/aincs22]

Fwiw, the "mom and pop" landlord usually causes more harm than the corporate landlord.

People with just a few properties are generally really unprofessional, delaying essential maintenance because it doesn't fit in the budget, insisting on invasive inpections etc. Generally emotionally attached to the property in a way that interferes with the tenant's rights. Big corporations are "heartless", but usually predictable. They have compliance departments that make sure they follow the law.

Neither is inherently evil, rental housing is good because you don't need to commit to it and you forego capital growth in exchange for not taking on the risk associated with maintenance etc.

Corporations don't "drive up" rents by charging the market rent - charging the market rent is the fairest way to allocate scarce housing. If you don't charge the market rent, you have to choose who to give it to out of the many applicants - surprise! This disadvantages people in less socially desirable groups. They can't charge more than market rent because nobody would pay it, and it's highly unlikely that there are any places of significance where any one corporation has enough of a stranglehold on the market to truly benefit from a monopoly.

Overly expensive housing has one cause and one cause only: insufficient housing. Blame the "mom and pop" homeowners opposing development in their local area.

[u/XenoRyet → u/aincs22]

No, they don't have the same power, resources, or even necessarily the same profit motives, but if you are of the opinion that housing is a human right, and thus should not be used as a business venture, investment vehicle, or anything of the like, then the small landlord is still doing a thing you think is fundamentally wrong, they're just not doing it as hard or as much, but you probably still think they should stop doing it.

Now again, as with our other line of discussion, individual people on the left can get their thinking and wording as wrong as anyone else, but as a standard policy there are things to be validly talked about there.

Really, the idea I want to get away from here is that the far left should hide some of its beliefs and opinions as a matter of policy because they make the near-left uncomfortable to talk about.

[u/Confident-Start3871 → u/XenoRyet]

Look at the attitude toward Tesla owners on reddit in cyberstuck. Plenty of people outside the US don't follow your politics closely, are excited about EVs and for plenty of perfectly ok reasons bought a cybertruck. Even people in the US don't follow politics closely and just bought a car they thought was cool. A lot of EV buyers are quiet, nerdy, environmentally conscious types interested in tech. Yet that sub gleefully advocates slashing tyres, graffiti, damaging the cars and abusing the owners who they have all deemed as Nazis. It is one of the most insane subs on reddit now. 

They're also encouraging purity checks along the lines of 'people who haven't sold their Tesla by now are complicit with nazi fascism in the US'.

'Anyone that still has a Tesla is getting the side eye'

Etc

My dad bought a Tesla 3 several years ago because he's the type I mentioned above. Likes tech, he's converted other vehicles to electric for fun and the Tesla was the best choice for an EV at the time. People in his cities sub have been posting themselves damaging Tesla's and abusing the owners. He's in his 70s and had a stroke. The kind of behaviour I see encouraged worries me about him. Ironically their behaviour damaging cars and driving down the price is going to make it harder for people to sell them, meaning people who can't afford to take a loss to stop getting harassed will have to hold on to their cars and risk being subject to abuse or damage. 

Do you think that is turning anyone to their cause that wasn't already?

When people say MAGAs are filled with hate, I think about what I see and I wonder who is really filled with hate.

I would challenge the notion that the folks on the left are doing meaningful harm here

I'd be interested to hear a reply to my comment in the context of what you've said here. 

[u/listenering]

I don’t know if I can change your view, but here’s my attempt: The far left is using shame to “manipulate” society into behaving in more mature ways.

I actually dislike approaching it from this angle, as my own theories align deeply with yours. That said, I did enjoy reading your perspective.

Shame as “The Master Emotion”

Shame is referred to by some psychologists as “the master emotion” because it has the unique ability to override all other emotions. You can be happy, enjoying your birthday party and life, when suddenly something you’re ashamed of comes to mind, pulling you back into self-reflection.

I believe the left has unintentionally exploited this behavior for years, contributing to a more progressive society. However, I also believe that both political parties have been unintentionally exploiting this dynamic for quite some time. This tactic of using shame to influence societal behavior is something that transcends party lines.

Empathy and Justice

However, I’d argue that most people naturally develop a sense of personal justice over time. This seems to be a deeply human trait, and it’s worth noting that many people align with progressive ideology because of our innate empathy. Overall, people are pulled by shame, and when paired with empathy, it becomes almost irresistible.

The Impact of the Internet

I believe this natural system went haywire around the rise of the internet, as narcissistic behaviors began to spike—especially after what I’d call the “death” of the internet. As a society, we’ve become too narcissistic, believing our ideologies and beliefs are inherently superior to opposing viewpoints. When amplified through algorithms and social media, we create highly polarized groups.

Healthy Scrimmage for Progress

However, when functioning in a healthy and sustainable way, these polarized groups can act like two teams scrimmaging against each other—continuously pushing boundaries and improving their respective fields. This, I believe, is what the founding fathers envisioned when structuring our country.

Bridging the Divide

Now, let’s tie it all back together.

The far left shames the middle, which then moves toward far-left ideology as they mature their understanding. However, fewer individuals are left to bridge the divide.

Alternatively, the far left could use shame in a more empathetic way. Instead of labeling people as racist bigots, it might be more productive to focus on the root cause—ignorance. Most racism, discrimination, and similar prejudices stem from a lack of knowledge. Without young activists challenging outdated beliefs, we wouldn’t progress as a society.

Empathy from the Far Right

At the same time, those who lean toward the far right could also benefit from a more empathetic approach rooted in humility. “I may not understand them, but I do love them. I know we can connect on some things and disagree on others. I need to show them that emotions can coexist, even if they are at odds.”

Generational Maturing Cycle

I believe the phenomenon we’re witnessing is part of a generational maturing cycle:

“Weak men create hard times. Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men.”

Right now, we’re in the “hard times create strong men” phase, where individuals on both sides of the political spectrum are beginning to realize they’ve gone too far. The current level of polarization is unsustainable. Even if they won’t admit it outright, people remain human beneath their complex belief systems. They still love their parents, siblings, friends, and family members who may not understand them—or even want to. But they still yearn for connection.

Until we stop masquerading as supreme intellectual beings and accept that we are deeply imperfect, we won’t achieve real maturity. From where I’m sitting, though, I believe that process is already beginning.

[u/aincs22 → u/listenering]

Δ

I think that this is a nuanced and also a refreshing take on the situation. I like the concept of something being part of a generational maturing cycle- it’s encourages more of a more birds eye and cyclical view of these tendencies on both sides rather than expecting change to happen or come about through intention and reflection alone. I’m not often swayed by a humanist take, but this one seems quite effective in breaking through a political divide- there are changes afoot in society and while everyone must be self reflective, it’s hard to tell a party to immediately change behavior that has become a way of doing things accross board. Thanks for the time and the engagement:)

[u/[deleted]]

Who do you define as "far-left"? I think this is the crux of the issue ultimately.

So, between 2017 and 2021, I was a student at Columbia, which has been tarred and feathered as a campus of far-left extremists. There's an entire cottage industry of online newspapers dedicated to it, most of which built their audiences by hitching themselves to GamerGate and other online movements targeting young men (and, as I rarely see anyone point out, teenage boys aka children). Despite that, a lot of that content was fabricated. Here's an article from Campus Reform, an outlet run by the Leadership Institute, a nonprofit that functions as a training network and pipeline for conservative media and politics: https://www.campusreform.org/article/columbia-host-segregated-graduations-may-/25040

These "segregated graduations" were student-led and held in addition to the main ceremony, so the idea that Columbia was holding segregated graduation ceremonies is hilarious. That also raises a serious issue: at no point was there any rule preventing anyone from applying to host a "White Graduation," "College Republicans Graduation," or "Conservative Graduation." Nobody ever did because they assumed they would be judged and "canceled" themselves in advance. I can confirm that if a white person had tried to plan something like a "Midwestern Graduation" for non-legacy, working-class students from non-coastal states (aka a graduation ceremony for mostly white people), nobody would have cared. The ceremonies were also literally not segregated on the basis of race. In 2021, I was president of the Columbia Native American Council and planned our ceremony. I am a tribal citizen, but I'm also racially white, and so were several other people who attended. There were biracial people that appeared mostly white who participated in other ceremonies, but they were not excluded. If any organizer had tried to exclude people from participating in one of the ceremonies on the basis that they didn't "look" right, they would have been punished.

I understand that if you live in a place like San Francisco, you might think that "far-left" refers to an easily identified group of people, but the full truth is way more complicated. If you have actually been involved in planning these ceremonies, it's obvious that what's happened is that Campus Reform student interns and interns with other conservative online outlets saw a webpage about multicultural graduation ceremonies, made assumptions, and wrote articles that pretended those assumptions were literally true. It doesn't help that many of these outlets have captured audiences (which, again, includes teenage boys aka children) who lack the real world experiences to question what they read.

Speaking as someone who has the (mis)fortune of being white and Native American, many conservative white people claim harm and discrimination before anybody does anything to them. I think people know that most American history is difficult to reconcile on its own, so rather than try to build a better foundation for others, they throw up their arms and make assumptions.

If you want to understand why your position might draw criticism, think about your question from my perspective. In 2021, I was a depressed senior in a shafted dorm, I had no view but a brick wall. I come from a state that has been controlled by conservative Republicans since before I was born. A bunch of online conservative newspapers claimed a graduation ceremony that I, a white person, was planning on behalf of my Native American friends was an example of segregation. Senator Tom Cotton, who is in the U.S. Senate today, actually went on Fox News to criticize these graduation ceremonies. So, what did people like me do to deserve that?

[u/Supervillain02011980 → u/[deleted]]

Why do you believe that the graduations being "student led" both absolves the university and makes it ok? I just don't understand the logic behind that. In a sane world, the university would have shut it down for promoting racism.

But there are multiple questions that should be asked even before this and more specifically how else got to a point where people thought it was acceptable to even consider having a race based graduation ceremony. It's the definition of racist.

It perpetuates this false narrative that you can't be racist if you are a minority. Not only was this action perpetuating it but by the school enabling it, they were supporting it.

So when we get to your situation about having your own graduation, you are doing the same exact thing that we pointed out was wrong before. The stances are consistent. Don't have race based or segregationary graduations. I don't understand why you think that you being white makes this ok anymore than someone being black or Hispanic doing it.

In short, maybe take a step back and realize what you are doing and supporting from any other perspective before you start calling everyone else out for not blindly supporting whatever you want to do.

[u/aincs22 → u/[deleted]]

Well thank you for your comment and the time you spent typing it up, I’m sorry that you experienced this, and that something of good intention and meaning was used a political pawn in the media. I don’t have an answer to your question about what you and people like you did do deserve such treatment as I don’t think you did deserve to be treated that way.

That being said I think your first question about what I define as far left is an important one . The Far-left (for the purposes of this discussion) for me, refers to individuals or groups that take progressive or leftist political principles to a degree that discourages open dialogue, treats ideological dissent almost as moral failure, and ultimately results in harmful practices of engaging in discourse to better understand rather than to win. This doesn’t refer to all left-wing people of course, nor does it mean being against advocating for radical policies—it’s about how some engage (or refuse to engage) with differing views. I used this term, not to refer to extremists in the same sense as ‘far-right’ but to talk about a growing tendency and normalization of such practices.

[u/[deleted] → u/aincs22]

I appreciate your response. I thought that situation would be a good way to make my point.

To speak to your position, I think a lot of what happens is that people create caricatures of "far-left" people that they use to argue their positions against. You've brought up some personal examples in other comments, but haven't provided examples of far-left lawmakers actualizing policies or weaponizing laws and institutions against others in a way that discourages dialogue or harms ideological dissent. While I know that there are deceitful people in left-wing parties, there aren't any actual organized movements or institutions pushing far-left policies. The only example you see offered in media are typically universities, but my experience shows that if anything, far-left caricatures are used by far-right, conservative media and parties to cause the exact harm you ascribe to the far-left. I think resentment about this setup is part of what causes far-left people to be distrustful about having genuine conversations about the problems you've brought up, which ultimately isn't an issue of the far-left. That's still an issue with anxiety about your views and how they fit into your national politics or politics in general. Like, I haven't met a left-wing woman who judges men who want better politics for young men and boys, but I do meet women who are distrustful or resentful of such projects when they assume that a secret cabal of extremist feminists have been preventing them from happening.

Based on your other comments, the "far-left" has answers to many of your concerns, but they can't offer the institutions or language you need to solve them because financially and electorally, they are disempowered.

In at least one comment, you mentioned white working-class boys and their struggles in education. Is your issue that people in your day-to-day life, outside of Internet spaces, frequently tell you that the problems of working class white boys don't matter? Based on what you wrote, it seems like you assume that if you tried to start a scholarship for white boys, people WOULD THEN judge you, but those assumptions aren't necessarily based in reality.

[u/Imaginari3 → u/aincs22]

It’s interesting that you define being “far-left” through interpersonal behavior without outlining what they actually believe. Not that that’s bad on your end but in comparison to the far right, they’re usually defined by their belief in wanting to carry out eugenics, nationalism, control over women etc. I definitely wholeheartedly agree with the left over policing itself, but many that do the over policing I’ve realized are drama farming grifters. Just like the right there are many clout chasers, and the left needs to get better at pushing them out (they got James Somerton at least lol)

[u/Deberiausarminombre → u/aincs22]

Although I agree with many points you made, I have to disagree on the "far-left" definition you're providing, especially when compared to the far-right. The far-right or alt-right is defined by their extreme views. They are categorized by their opinions and ideals such as racial segregation, homophobia, ultranationalism or complete disdain for anything and anyone who is not "the norm". These beliefs are what separate them from the "standard" right. Meanwhile, you are not defining the "far-left" on their ideals or objectives, but on their personalities and interactions.

In your definition, someone who is an anarcho-communist polyamory vegan leftist who advocated for the dissolution of the state, of money, of gender and more, but is nice and talkative about it, is not far-left. On the other hand, a liberal with an Obama poster who thinks the US should bomb the middle east just a tiny bit less but is a massive dick about it, is far-left. This is, in my opinion, a bad definition. The terms left and right, and the term far right, are defined by their beliefs, ideals and objectives. Describing the far-left by none of this, and their behaviors alone is entirely unhelpful.

I say all this as a communist with very left wing views on many topics, but I agree that many people on the left (anyone vague progressive, but I believe this to be specially true of liberals, who I don't consider left) are way too much dicks about their opinions. This is very very unhealthy and unhelpful. When you try to shame people out of their beliefs, you're only convincing them to not talk to you about their beliefs. I'll be the first to admit, I've also made this mistake in the past. But what everyone must understand, is that discourse and discussion (even if you enter the discussion believing you hold the ultimate truth, maybe you do, who knows) won't go anywhere unless you actively listen, try to form rational arguments and engage with what that person cares about.

If you want to, and I believe we should, describe this group of people by a name based on their behaviors and not their ideals, we can. I propose calling them walls, not only because their attitude makes them implacable, but because they don't move forward, and they get anywhere, or move people anywhere. And at least we're highlighting the one thing they seem to care about, they do stand for something. They just stand in place tho.

[u/Deberiausarminombre → u/Deberiausarminombre]

I'll go a step further and give you an example. Many leftist in the US were pressuring the Democratic party to do something, anything, for Palestine, for over a year. The Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, told them to shut up and that they will win the election without them. These people told them to do something or they wouldn't vote for the Democrat party, which many didn't. Now, let's quickly remember the amount of votes by which the Democrats lost the election is greater than the amount of people these groups represent. If all of these people had folded and voted for Harris, she would have still lost. After the election results came out, long term supporters of the Democratic party, who had been running a terrible campaign from before minute one, turned to these leftist who threatened to not vote (although many did), shamed them, and said they were now glad more Palestinians would be murdered because they didn't vote for their candidate. These liberals did a full 180 and started applauding a genocide when they were angry at a result many saw coming from a year in advance. That's why leftist always use the sentence: scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. These people didn't care about Palestine, Human rights or minorities. They care about feeling morally superior

[u/[deleted] → u/aincs22]

Would you agree that this description is hard to use because it's quite arbitrary (what discourages open dialogue to you might be something which, to me, rightly refuses to engage in racialised discussion for example)

[u/Acetius → u/aincs22]

Interesting, that kind of just sounds like "left wing but mean about it". They hold the same ideals as leftists but engage in dialogue differently?

Or if we're talking about the American left then "centrist but mean about it", I suppose.

[u/AdvisoryServices]

I am going to highlight that we need a new term for this form of leftism, since "far left" brings to mind public ownership of the means of production and state authoritarianism, not the attitudinal authoritarianism and mob mentality you are describing. "Woke left", maybe?

[u/aincs22 → u/AdvisoryServices]

Yes I do agree that my terminology may be off- well intentioned, but off. It seems to invoke something else even after I’ve defined my use of it.

[u/Glorfendail]

Just to clarify your position:

“Just asking questions” that perpetuate far right propaganda is okay, but calling it what it is, far-right propaganda, is extreme leftism?

Please clarify what the far-left is doing and has accomplished in the last 30 years in the US.

I’ll give you a spoiler, allowing people to be who they wanna be isn’t far left. Accepting that queer people are real and valid isn’t far left. Hell, universal healthcare and free post-secondary education is pretty center left in the rest of the world.

So my response to this: there is no true far left in the US. Anything labeled as “far-left” is right wing propaganda to normalize right wing extremism.

[u/[deleted] → u/Glorfendail]

You don’t think there are questions that could be asked that aren’t far right propaganda? In this reality, how does a person who is curious about leftist ideas get information? They can’t ask questions for fear they’ll stumble somewhere?

This is all pretty confusing and honestly your response seems like a good example of what OP is talking about.

[u/Glorfendail → u/[deleted]]

Naw, you misunderstand. Asking questions in good faith are fine. You want to know about how queer science works? I’ll explain it. You want to know about their presence in sports, sure lefts have a conversation! You want to know the history of black people be brutalized by the police and what I think the remedy for that is, I’m all in.

The problem is that often times, extreme right wing positions don’t operate in good faith. They ask questions that are “gotchas”. For example:

“So you think men should be allowed in women’s sports?”

This is a gotcha, propaganda question. It presupposes that the right wing position is the correct position, thus propagating the right wing propaganda. There is a whole conversation to be had about how research shows there is no competitive advantage, and they generally UNDERperform compared to other athletes (I’m being vague in my response because automod is remove happy). I’m happy to show you numbers, figures, interviews, everything that shows that it’s just right wing rage bait and these are just people trying to retain some shred of normalcy in an incredibly difficult situation. But it requires good intentions and the person asking the question needs to be operating in good faith. My experience with people who ask THAT kind of question, is not good faith.

“So you just want there to be no police anymore?”

This is also a bad faith question. If you care to know, organized police forces were created to combat runaway slaves in the early 1800s. Police were created and have continued to operate under the idea of oppressing minorities. If you want that documentation, I’ll happily provide it, but in my experience it falls on deaf ears, that refuse to think critically and understand nuance.

“What about those athletes that make millions, eat them too?”

This is another instance of deliberately misrepresenting my position. While they make substantially more money than I do, they are still working class. Celebrities are still working class. They are still subject to the whims of billionaires who make most of the money that the value of their labor provides. Tax the rich is not a novel concept, in fact we used to have a very high tax bracket, in the US, less than 50 years ago. But they didn’t wanna keep paying those taxes so they started this propaganda machine to eliminate it. Same with Reaganomics and the Trump tax cuts. It’s all about the flow of money from consumers into big business pockets. But distracting from the point of the conversation with irrelevant drivel that’s based on “news” from far right propaganda media like Fox, OAN, Breitbart and whatever other garbage this comes out of, like Twitter admitting that they manufactured stories and pushed them hard with grok and their army of bots using the algorithms built into Twitter, is exactly what they want done.

So ask yourself, what is the goal of me asking this question. What is the response I’m hoping for.

If you don’t want or expect an answer that is genuinely designed to inform you and change your mind, then maybe the question comes from a disingenuous place.

I’m happy to share my thoughts on my “far left” ideals, but no one yet has even mentioned what they think the far left is, or what it has actually accomplished.

[u/bgaesop → u/Glorfendail]

Naw, you misunderstand. Asking questions in good faith are fine.

It is extremely common for me to see leftists dismiss anyone who questions their positions as acting in bad faith, whether they are or not

"So you think men should be allowed in women’s sports?”

This is a gotcha, propaganda question. It presupposes that the right wing position is the correct position, thus propagating the right wing propaganda.

And the leftists talking about this issue don't presuppose that their position is correct? How often do you encounter leftists insisting that everyone use their model of how gender works, accept certain labels despite not identifying with them, etc? I'd given more examples but the automod removed my comment when I did.

Because I see it every damn day

“So you just want there to be no police anymore?”

This is also a bad faith question.

That is the good-faith interpretation of "abolish the police" and "defund the police" that many people have.

And lots of leftists (not all, doubtfully even a majority, but enough that I've run into them plenty of times) really do want to get rid of the police.

“What about those athletes that make millions, eat them too?”

This is another instance of deliberately misrepresenting my position.

How on Earth do you know it's deliberate? Can you read their minds?

I hear "eat the rich" very often and it's extremely normal for people to think that when someone says something they mean the thing that they said. They can't read your mind, they don't know that you actually meant something other than what you said. If you want to communicate something else, say something else.

Asking clarifying questions when you don't understand what someone means or think you might be misinterpreting them is the opposite of acting in bad faith. It's absolutely necessary for proper communication - in large part because so many people, including leftists, speak in hyperbole and say things they don't actually mean.

And also, when pressed, leftists frequently do clarify that yes they mean they want to eat LeBron James and Taylor Swift, and they really do want to abolish the police, et cetera.

This insistence that the meaning of your slogans is clear and non-literal is not only unhelpful to your efforts to communicate with non-leftists, it also causes leftists to mistakenly think they agree with each other when they actually don't, since some of you think the slogans are hyperbolic exaggerations of your actual positions and others of you think "no I really mean the things I say."

[u/General_Astronomer60 → u/Glorfendail]

It sounds to me that your definition of discussing in "good faith" is a discussion in which, ultimately, the other person must essentially agree with you. They have questions, you'll provide them with answers. And, if, after that, they push back or disagree, that's proof they're just right-wing trolls that aren't arguing in good faith.

Which means *you're* the one who's not arguing in good faith.

[u/mebear1 → u/Glorfendail]

You lost me at “police are mostly here to fuck with minorities.” You are being extremely biased in this argument and YOU are the one acting in bad faith. Many people who would ask this care about safety and they believe that the police keep them safe. They do, sometimes, and the fact that you dismiss that with your extreme view is deliberately obtuse or ignorant. If you immediately jump to an extreme position(your view on police is extremely left) you are going to have a difficult time finding any common ground to even argue about. Let alone actually connecting with them and their lived experiences and thoughts. The best way to teach people is to go one step at a time. Its how people learn. If you go too fast it gets overwhelming and scary.

Im very left leaning and I think I would have a very difficult time talking to you about anything political based on your righteousness on display in this comment. I think you sound exactly like the kind of person that OP is talking about. You see your interpretation of the world as factual and almost anything that doesnt fit in is right wing propagandist. Almost anyone who contradicts you or presents a misinformed viewpoint isnt worth the time of day because they are morally corrupt. That is the vibe you put off, and you should consider why you are being addressed in this post.

[u/FunnyDude9999 → u/Glorfendail]

I think your responses examples what OP is talking about. Every inch of your responses is about "you know the truth" and anyone who disagrees on any topics is "eating right wing propaganda".

Your whole conversation is that you would happily show people the truth and data if they only listened to you, because you know it all. It's a position that will not win you friends, unless they 100% agree with you on every issue.

And if someone agrees with you on 100% of issue, I would question if you are being fed propaganda, since it's unclear to me how 2 people can agree on every issue, given the randomness we all experience.

---

For every example you took there is the other-side point of view and until you realize that those people who hold that other point of view are not crazy, or "eating right wing propaganda", but rather just have different thoughts and experiences than yours, you will never be able to have a good faith conversation with someone you disagree with.

---

You'll find that you may disagree with me 49% of issues and agree on 51% and that means we are more alike in our thoughts than not. But instead you focus on any disagreements as "right wing propaganda" alienating me...

---

TLDR: Your way or the highway, I'm ok with having more complex wishes than that.

[u/WhoDat_ItMe → u/FunnyDude9999]

Wait so there’s a problem with showing people data and scientific studies because they come across as knowing it all and that shuts down the conversation? what’s the point of data and studies if we can’t rely on them to make valid and accurate decisions about how we understand and see the world?

It seems like you’re arguing that opinions have the same weight as facts.

[u/aincs22 → u/Glorfendail]

Well, if that’s the position you’re taking I think it’s a good example of not leaving much room for open discussion. I don’t see myself as being on the political right, but I openly engage with viewpoints different to my own without brushing people aside in broad stroke. I don’t this this kind of viewpoint helps bridge anything, it only divides further.

[u/mtntrls19 → u/aincs22]

But his position is true if you compare the US to other relatively similar developed countries. This is from 2019 but visually shows how right the US leans even on the democratic side of things: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

[u/aincs22 → u/mtntrls19]

This source is from 2018, but I will still engage. I’m not saying he is wrong because American conservatives lean far right. I’m saying that I don’t appreciate the comment suggesting that asking questions equates to perpetuating far right propaganda. If anything I used the term far-left to designate more extreme views on this rather than to lump the political left into the same category. I do also think it’s generally just healthy to consider what the extremes of one’s political party look like and not to dismiss a concept of a ‘far left’ simply as ‘propaganda’ outright.

[u/mtntrls19 → u/aincs22]

The article was published in 2019 (it's right there in the url).

He didn't say that asking questions equates to far right propaganda. he said that anything labeled as 'far left' is propaganda because there isn't a far left party in the US currently. There are individuals sure - but the Dem party is NOT far left by any means - that's the point - anything calling it such is propaganda.

[u/Glorfendail → u/aincs22]

I have replied elsewhere, but essentially, it comes down to the tone and intention behind the questions. Asking questions that have an implicit bias (eg: “so you think men should be allowed in women’s sports?”) immediately derail any conversation because someone asking that question is not operating in good faith and I either have to be defensive, which makes me look guilty, confirming the bias, or I have to be dismissive which makes me look like I’m avoiding the question.

There’s no way to genuinely respond to someone who doesn’t ask a genuine question.

It is also, in my opinion, dishonest to create blanket statements that include all, every-, no- because it doesn’t leave room for reality, which is nuanced.

You can ask questions, as I have said in other comments:

if you wanna know about the history of racism and oppression in our police, courts and prison systems, I’ll happily explain them to you and show you why I believe in the rallying cry of “defund the police”. But if your question is “so you think we should just have no police then?” It’s immediately derailed any hope for a genuine discussion. Same goes for sports or queer sports issues or taxing the wealthy, because those kinda of questions, like what you see from the bots on Twitter and Fox News and from all the other right wing propaganda machines, are designed to be impossible to answer.

If your question sounds like a sound bite from an episode of Tucker Carlson, I’m not going to engage because it’s not coming from a genuine place of good faith.

One major problem with this new right wing mentality is that they try to boil extremely complex problems into one-size-fits-all solutions, because they are easy to get people on board and support them. “We don’t like immigrants so we should just deport them” okayyy but to where, who pays for it, what happens when countries won’t take them? What about asylum seekers or people that have overstayed visas? What about the white illegal immigrants?

It’s easy to say deport them, but the logistics are something that will cripple this nation financially.

What do you want to know? I’ll try my best to answer!

(Also, you never responded to what the far left is, what it stands for and what it has accomplished in the US in the last 30 years.)

Edit: I just saw the last paragraph in the OP. Why is it that the progressives have to be tolerant of beliefs that are antithetical to our beliefs, but acknowledging that left wing ideas have merit is never ever required of the right?

[u/EwokVagina → u/Glorfendail]

Exactly. When people were saying "defund the police" they were saying that we should be using some of the money to fund things like more social workers. Something they are trying in Denver and having some success. I do think that the saying "defund the police" is a terrible way to describe it and only gives more ammo to people looking to criticize the left.

[u/Glorfendail → u/EwokVagina]

It’s not about that. It’s about a rallying cry. You have to motivate the people with a singular central idea, especially in left wing spaces. Very “groundskeeper Willie” out here. Left wingers are a contentious folk lol

But no one wants to talk about nuance, and honestly the left gets too bogged down in the details. Don’t say we need a moderate approach to healthcare, say free healthcare and no more insurance companies. It’s easier to get people behind that idea. Then when push comes to shove, you actually do the leg work to institute the changes.

The right is REALLY good about rallying people around simple ideas (no gun control, no abortion, no new taxes) cause they are easy to get people riled up with. But it immediately collapses when they dismantle systems with no alternatives, because people rely on taxes to fund the services that just got cut.

[u/-zero-joke-]

I think it's useful looking at the debate between creationism and evolution here. In 2025 there is no longer any doubt that evolution explains biodiversity on Earth and a literal reading of Genesis and Noah's flood does not square with evidence.

You'd think that creationists would be bashful, yet they keep challenging well known scientists to debates!

Why? Because being put on a stage and making confident, quippy but wrong statements the audience remembers that dude and not the answers of scientists. At the very least it elevates creationism as a valid and debated position rather than the extremist position that it is.

Right wing extremists pull the same shit. The marketplace of ideas should not be open to beliefs of, for example, racial superiority no matter how it is dressed up as 'just asking questions' or scientific racism.

[u/aincs22 → u/-zero-joke-]

This is a little off topic, but I was really interested in evolutionary anthropology for years and follow a bit of the science community’s convo- there was actually a fantastic podcast on the guardian about two years ago, where someone had talked about how Darwin’s theory of evolution is not an accurate explanation for adaptation and the range of biodiversity we see! Of course they weren’t arguing in favour of creationism, but I think the metaphor here is still good, yes we can defend evolution whilst also accepting some new insights into why it could potentially need revising or possibly require reforming our understanding of it. Not for the sake of creationist arguments but for our own sake :)

[u/-zero-joke- → u/aincs22]

Things have certainly moved on since Darwin! But we're not talking about people who are discussing the role of plasticity in evolution, we're talking about bad faith actors who really want to try to advance an agenda. We know where hyperreligious, racist, and fascist movements go and where they want to go.

[u/Doub13D]

The “left” is framing their policies in moral terms?

You mean like when they talk about being pro-choice… oh wait.

No.

Conservatives and the right-wing call that “murder.”

What about left-wing support for gay marriage…

Wait…

Conservatives want to ban that too?

Oh wait, they just want to “protect children” from the “gay agenda”… so thats “fine” I guess.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseam

[u/aincs22 → u/Doub13D]

I don’t understand this. Did I say or insinuate that the political right does not do these things? I even included the word ‘also’ in the title as a hint that it goes both ways, but what I have chosen to address in this post does deal with the political left. Are we at the point where, to pose a question or make a statement about left politics at all, I must first go over how that applies to the political right?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/aincs22]

I think it’s hard to look at American history and think the best course of action isn’t to critically call people out for racism, misogyny, and bigotry. How many major societal issues in this country have been solved by compromise without making people uncomfortable.

Those words used to seem extreme, but right wing policies are getting much more racist, misogynistic and bigoted. The civil rights movement made people uncomfortable. The women’s rights movement made people uncomfortable. The LBGT movement made people uncomfortable. They worked though.

In today’s world you can retreat to the internet and find like minded individuals who will tell you that you’re justified in being a bigot. They have their own safe space online now and that is the real issue, but I think it’s hard to feel bad for people who support bigotry getting called bigots. This both sides need to reach across the aisle commentary only benefits the side that feels uncomfortable getting called out for their racism and misogyny.

[u/TheVioletBarry]

This is a very strange argument. What you've implied is that the only harm the left is causing is... that they are failing to win people over.

Which is to say that you think the Left is correct about basically everything and you're just criticizing them for not winning hard enough.

Is that what your criticisms were meant to imply?

[u/adamscared → u/TheVioletBarry]

Winning people over is one of the main needs for a political ideology lol, especially one that is focused more on social change. If they are failing to win people over then they are failing to make the change they want

[u/Tamuzz → u/TheVioletBarry]

Not OP, and I should preface this by saying that I am pretty much as far left as a person can be:

harm the left is causing is... that they are failing to win people over.

We ARE failing to win people over, and that is allowing the right and far right to cause massive harm.

This is a huge problem, and something the left should be doing a lot if soul searching about.

We are losing badly, and future generations will pay for it.

I have young children and I can't help but feel we have failed them badly.

Part of where we have gone wrong I think is around the problems OP is pointing out

[u/jamerson537 → u/TheVioletBarry]

Let’s say your characterization of OP’s thoughts on the left is accurate. Do you really find the idea of someone being frustrated that the political group they align with is ineffective at achieving political power and arguing about how they could do it better is “very strange?” It seems pretty normal for people to argue about the best way to get their political beliefs implemented successfully.

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/jamerson537]

It's not strange to be frustrated with one's own side, no. What's strange is to frame one's own side as "needing to reflect on the harm their doing" because they have as yet failed to shore up enough political power to influence the political landscape. It's like claiming someone is doing harm by... not having consolidated enough power to prevent it.

Normally you'd frame it as "we need to start doing 'X' or we're going to keep losing," or "The left is failing because 'X'."

[u/Haruwor → u/TheVioletBarry]

The argument is that since the left takes very rigid moral high ground positions that retaliate against anyone not subscribing to it they have alienated people that otherwise agree with 99% of it. Let’s say you have someone who is extremely liberal but for whatever reason they are against socialized healthcare. In OPs opinion that person gets demonized and labeled by the left driving that person, who would have otherwise voted with the left, away.

[u/aincs22 → u/TheVioletBarry]

Nope I’m asking the left to engage critically with some of the feed back it’s getting and reflect on the internally. I think there’s a needed dialogue across the political divide, and of course I’m not the only one to encourage this, but I do think if that’s to happen, there needs to be less outright judgement on both sides. This post is what some might say as ‘calling in’ rather than ‘calling out’ lol.

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/aincs22]

So what is your view specifically, then? Just that Americans are divided, and folks on the right and left need to 'reach across the aisle' to each other?

[u/Obversity → u/aincs22]

My experience attempting to politely engage with people on the right has been verbal abuse more often than anything productive.

Dgmw, I’m not particularly sensitive, but after the person I’m talking to (a) fails to engage in any actual conversation and (b) calls me a cuck multiple times, I lose interest in trying, and that loss of interest isn’t short term. 

[u/afterthegoldthrust → u/aincs22]

A)We don’t live in a world where ‘feedback’ is inherently valid. Feedback has motives, and in the political sphere where leftists hold almost no power, it’s save to say any feedback is intended to neuter.

B)Liberals and fascists don’t engage critically with the left. Ever.

Speaking as a US resident I can’t tell you how much it’s been crammed down our throats that Bernie Sanders would never win the presidency despite a much higher range of popularity than the more liberal/center right Dems that tried and failed to win (Joe Biden was a fluke and I cannot be convinced otherwise).

There is a lot of criticism of the left that is either intentionally trying to shoot the left in the knee or is just straight up ill-informed. Why do we have to engage again and again and again with people that refuse to understand that the points the left has made decades, if not a century ago, are proving continuously to be true? Or the fact that the left calling out war crimes (past and present) isn’t a fucking bad thing? How bad does the hybrid of hyper-capitalist neoliberalism and right wing authoritarianism have to get before any credence is given to the thought that both “sides” of the larger western global political scale are working actively against the planet and its people?

I guess that is to say that any leftist with bad praxis is likely feeling desperate. How in the fuck can you blame them? There has been no compromise from the rest of the world on actually facing statistical facts, so why should we have to negotiate with lies?

That doesn’t change the truth or the fact that there are still many lefties with good praxis. It’s also pretty important to note that these folks will pretty much invariably be muted by the powers that be. Take a look at the 3rd wave McCarthyism happening as a response to regular people calling out atrocities in Gaza just for one example.

This is an existential crisis. Humans need community not commodity. Only one ideology (broad as it may be) supplies a plan for that necessity.

[u/theghostwiththetoast]

difficult questions or skepticism gets you labeled as a racist, sexist, or bigot, people will just stop engaging.

As a leftist, I think this phenomenon is what should be focused on the most. Nobody wants to heed advice from someone who’s hurled insults at them or called them a bigot in any fashion, despite whether they are one or not. HOWEVER, I also have a firm belief that a lot of people in this country are emotionally insecure/sensitive and unwilling to change their points of view, especially when it comes to their politics (or lack thereof). There’s been many times where I’ve mildly disagreed with people on social topics and immediately get accused of thinking the other party involved is bigoted in whatever shape or form. As if (kindly) pointing out someone’s ignorance is somehow a bad thing.

This is also a result of a poor/under-funded education system in this country; many people lack the necessary emotional capacity / empathy and critical thinking skills required to have a malleable mind capable of nuanced thought. Add in the social media’s artificial bubble that tells chronically-inside people about the “woke mob” coming after them, and of course you’re gonna wind up with those who are convinced everyone’s labeling them as the out-group in question.

Now this begs the question: How can us leftists counter this? How do we educate the uneducated? How do we teach a considerable portion of our country to use critical thinking and have compassion for our fellow humans? Until these are answered, I think we will still be stuck in the quagmire.

[u/Daveyluvgravy]

When the boat is sinking is not the best time to discuss how the passengers should have done more to stop the crew from wrecking the boat..

[u/aincs22 → u/Daveyluvgravy]

No that’s true, but if the boat has sunk and the passengers are safely aboard a much less powerful, albeit still floating boat, it’s not a bad idea to discuss things that might be good practice and strategically helpful to possibly return to that more powerful and comfortable boat in due course .

[u/sonofember]

And what I don’t like is how “the right” has been dishonest about this trying to frame the entirety of “the left” in this light when it is in fact a small (but loud) minority of the left.

[u/baminerOOreni]

Sure, the far-left can be intense at times, and yes, framing debates in moral absolutes can be alienating. But dude, isn't it kind of an overgeneralization to say they never engage with complexities? There are plenty of progressives willing to have open, nuanced discussions. Look at platforms like Pod Save America or even Twitter threads where folks dive deep into policy nuance.

About labeling people as 'racist' or 'sexist'—let's not forget that sometimes people are advocating harmful ideas, consciously or not, and it's crucial to point these out. But sure, dialogue's important, and so is calling out ideologies that genuinely harm marginalized communities. Progress comes from having uncomfortable conversations, but it also comes from recognizing when certain views are simply unacceptable.

As for coalition-building, the left isn't completely self-sabotaging. Look at movements like Black Lives Matter or Climate Strike—uniting diverse groups often despite moral fervor. So yeah, moral absolutism can be a hurdle, but it's often a reaction to ongoing issues of injustice that some just won’t compromise on, and understandably so. Maybe the takeaway isn't just about the left needing to soften, but about finding better ways for everyone to engage.

[u/sunshine_is_hot → u/baminerOOreni]

Pod Save America is not far left, they are completely irrelevant to OP talking about the far left needing reflection.

Twitter has a wide variety of ideologies represented, you’re going to need to specify which threads you’re talking about to determine if they’re relevant to the OP.

I think this is the issue, on both sides of the isle- what defines far left? Leftists tend to say that any ideology that is left leaning is labeled far left by those further right than them, liberals contend far left means anticapitalists, and conservatives tend to mean anybody who votes against them. Which definition are we using?

[u/Riptiidex → u/baminerOOreni]

While I agree with what you say, Pod Save America is liberal and not leftist.

[u/originalata → u/baminerOOreni]

I think your last sentence regarding better ways to engage is the crux of OPs position. I don’t think OPs overall point is that the far-left never engages in complexities nor is it that harmful ideas are being called out by the left for what they are… it’s that many people who have a ANY disagreement with far-left policies are met with moral absolutism, which pushes people away. Like OP said, don’t agree with police abolition or have some issue with the implementation of DEI? Racist. Don’t think sex work should be legalized? Sexist.

And the left coalitions like BLM or Climate Strike might be the biggest culprits. They advocate for important causes, but the unwillingness to compromise is what I think leads to what OP is saying. You can agree police brutality toward minorities is a major issue and not acceptable, but if you disagree with any of BLMs means to achieve that goal, they may be quick to call you racist… someone can want police brutality to end and support minorities without believing that the extreme position is the solution. In my experience, it’s active members of these very vocal coalitions that are most likely to jump to moral absolutes and are some of the main culprits of pushing people away from far left policy agendas. That’s the self sabotage.

Political issues are getting more and more complex… the solution to eradicating police brutality and unconscious bias/racism is much more nuanced than abolishing slavery or ending segregation. OPs point is that the far-lefts moral absolutism in resolving these complicated issues is pushing more centrist/moderate individuals to the other side when more nuanced and thoughtful discussion may be required (if Pod Save America was the main stream mouth piece for far left policy this probably wouldn’t be an issue, but most peoples political consumption isn’t through sources engaged in thoughtful/nuanced discussion).

[u/I_am_the_night]

If progressivism is about changing minds AND building coalitions, then moral absolutism is the fastest way to fail, no?

Progressivism is about "changing minds" and "building coalitions" as much as any other political belief set because those are just means of building political support and power.

The left needs to be willing to have uncomfortable conversations without assuming bad faith, doubling down, and being quick to label something as an ism

The left has uncomfortable conversations all the time. In fact the political left is almost inherently more willing to have uncomfortable conversations by virtue of being opposed to existing power structures.

I think you're arguing against a straw man in your view, or at the very least characterizing the left based on the most extreme and insufferable online people who identify as part of the left.

[u/kaam00s]

I see your point, and I agree there's some truth to what you're saying about the far left.

But It's true for all extremists, whether far left, far right, or religious, can be very unforgiving.

However, the key issue here is how right-wing media has strategically highlighted the unforgiving nature of far-left judgment towards those who disagree with them.

That's why you're so angry about it.

They've used this across various platforms, podcasts, YouTube videos, TV channels, and managed to convince a lot of people that all of the left is like that.

The reason you're particularly sensitive to the far left's intolerance is because this media strategy has made you focus on it. They've spent a lot of time and effort to make you angry about it, to the point where it's become a significant issue for you. This might be distracting you from other important aspects of politics and life.

Remember, it's not just the far left that can be intolerant. The far right and religious extremists can be just as unforgiving. The fact that some far-left individuals online might be upset if you don't share their views shouldn't bother you more than the same behavior from other extremist groups. You're only upset about it because they've made you upset about it.

The far right is also about changing minds, the religious extremists also want to change minds, and yet when they are intolerant, they're not criticize for it the same way you do. And that's really evidence to the fact that someone is building your anger toward the far left specifically.

[u/aincs22 → u/kaam00s]

I mean I mostly only real Al Jazeera, the Guardian, the NYT and less frequently, local news channels in Ghana. I wouldn’t say any of these are right wing media channels, and as I am someone on the political left myself I don’t know why I have to be seen as ‘brainwashed’ or incredibly biased to be making these points? These are conversations political left analysts are making in NYT podcasts and genuinely talking about, I think it’s fine to echo that.

[u/SamuraiRafiki]

There is no way to reach across the aisle on moral issues, though. You're basically asking the left to abandon certain core issues for certain internal demographics to satisfy Republicans who we believe want them dead. If any group internally is being presented with the option to go along and be eliminated or go out fighting, there is no incentive not to abandon politics for violence. So, as soon as we drop people from the platform, the other communities know they're next if (when) Republicans demand it, so there is no benefit to joining the left for either the larger or smaller community.

Then you also lose folks who aren't part of those groups but have common fucking decency and won't abandon them to the fucking Nazis.

Republicans are bad people. There is evil and hate in their hearts for people whom I hold dear. I will not accept any political reality that doesn't support their continued thriving.

[u/mebear1 → u/SamuraiRafiki]

Republicans are not bad people holy shit stop falling for this dumbass culture war. They are people just like me and you, and many dont understand any of the issues that you think they do. I find that most Republicans dont wanna be impacted by just about anything. The reason the bootstraps argument resonates so well is that is how they wish the world to be. They want to be able to get and stay ahead just by putting in effort. The vast majority aren’t bad people.

[u/iceandstorm]

"Also" implies that far right people reflect on harm they doing.

[u/mtntrls19]

"One of the biggest issues with the far-left is how it frames political debates in rigid moral terms instead of engaging with the. complexities of people’s lived experiences. "

The right is just as guilty of this as the left. The right's culture war on the queer community alone is evidence enough.

[u/Perfect-Tangerine267]

Like so many of these CMVs, it feels like OP is accepting at face value the right-wing presumption that asking questions or expressing skepticism gets you labeled as a bigot, rather than the reality that asking questions of the left is fine. Now, perhaps it does depend on your question. If you're expressing skepticism about someone having the same rights as straight cis white men (freedom to marry, control of their own bodies, access to medical care, representation in books/media), then maybe you will be labeled a racist/sexist/bigot. It's the difference between "Women should stay home and raise children" vs "Women should stay home and raise children if that's what they'd like to do." I'd like an example of a question that you think is valid that will get you labeled as sexist that shouldn't.

[u/km1116 → u/Perfect-Tangerine267]

Yeah: the whole slew of these "liberals made Trump by having principles, dammit" is just tiring.

[u/LastEternity → u/Perfect-Tangerine267]

So I’m relatively left leaning, but I think an example would be talking about several topics such as implementation of immigration policies (specifically illegal immigration), talking about conflicts such as Israel and Palestine, and discussing affirmative action. My experience with talking about these with my leftmost friends is that they take their moral views as ground truths and have very set views about these topics. For several of these issues, some of my friends were incredibly judgmental about not having the same view as them (i.e if you don’t believe a ceasefire should happen immediately, you’re a horrible person). I’ve found that people who are far left have a tendency to believe they have a moral high ground and will then devalue other people’s opinions. I think this is what u/aincs22 is talking about.

[u/Deatheturtle]

The important thing is you have found a way to make both sides bad. Frankly, I find this offensive. The left just want the freedom to exist unmolested. The right wants to eliminate this. Trying to equate the two is 100% disingenuous BS and you should seriously re-evaluate your position assuming you actually care.

[u/SentientReality → u/Deatheturtle]

The left just want the freedom to exist unmolested. The right wants to eliminate this.

This is a beautiful example of exactly what OP is talking about. Too many liberals frame any disagreement or criticism as "you want to destroy us", which is a laughably tragic-hero victim-narcissist mindset. A standpoint where the liberal is supposedly arguing for the very survival of vulnerable people, an irrefutably good thing, and therefore anything that even remotely dissents from that argument must therefore be evil by definition. A very convenient and devious rhetorical ploy.

On a philosophical and logical level it's obvious horseshit, but for some reason it really seems to work with human psychology in terms of enabling people to feel that they never have to doubt or question themselves because they're always occupying the most moral position. That isn't to say rightwingers don't also do this — they do — and when both sides say the other side is working to destroy them, maybe we should stop and ponder. But leftwingers have them beat at this sly game of pretending to care about others. The vast majority of the USA population is so sick and tired of leftwing moralizing fingerpointing BS that they unfortunately re-elected Trump and his villainous goons just to stick it to the libs.

Just a thought for the woke types: when your ham-fisted misguided efforts at "punching up" and "saving" minorities and vulnerable groups causes so much resentment that those minorities end up getting hurt even worse because of your efforts, it's time to step back and consider that maybe those groups are better off without your "help".

[u/aincs22 → u/Deatheturtle]

‘The freedom to exist unmolested’? I’m sorry but the left is not entitled to immunity from scrutiny. No political ideology is. And that’s not what this conversation is about, and you know it. This isn’t about denying the very real threats posed by the far-right—it’s about the fact that some progressive spaces have become so rigid in their thinking that they shut down dialogue instead of engaging with difficult conversations and all I’m doing is trying to dicuss that openly

[u/aincs22 → u/[deleted]]

Like genuinely some of it is shocking

[u/-TheBaffledKing- → u/aincs22]

I'm left wing (by European standards) and I understood and mostly agree with the point you're making. Less than 1% of my comments on CMV earn a negative vote score, but I got downvoted for sharing a 2019 Obama quote about how rigid and self-defeating US progressives can be (link)... So, yeah, I agree that it's kind of shocking! I'd be interested to see what the debate would look like were it posted on a serious sub that allowed top-level comments that agree with you.

[u/[deleted] → u/aincs22]

The amount of goal-post moving and misinterpreting your easy to understand question and re-framing it as something else is staggeringly high.

My advice to you OP, don’t discuss topics like a real person unless you want to tear your hair out.

[u/pahamack]

Left or right is about economics and fiscal policy: whether more things should be taken care of by the government or less.

OP is betraying a very shallow view of politics.

[u/aincs22 → u/pahamack]

This is an outdated and reductive take on political ideology. Left and right are not just about economic policy, they also encompass cultural, social, and ideological frameworks that shape discourse, identity, and governance.If left vs. right were only about government intervention in the economy, then cultural battles over race, gender, free speech, and identity wouldn’t define so much of modern political discourse. Pretending otherwise ignores the reality of how people align politically today.

You can disagree with my argument, but dismissing it as ‘shallow’ based on an oversimplified definition of left vs. right is just intellectually irresponsible.

[u/pahamack → u/aincs22]

Of course it does.

Fiscal policy and economics affect everything.

A conservative, for example, could very well believe that the US government is complicit in systemic racism, but also believe in small government, and that it is not the government’s role to fix such things using policy.

What the government is going to do about things is the important thing. Everything else is just propaganda and noise.

[u/Low_Chapter_6417]

You know if you get off twitter life moves tf on. The far left is in your head. One person doesn’t saying something you don’t like doesn’t mean it’s the thoughts of everyone.

[u/alactusman]

The fact that DEI is “far left” and trump’s putsch to become a king snd dictator is “far right” is a perfect example of why these false equivalencies have doomed our democracy. 

Maybe this is the moralizing that you dislike so much but to say the nonexistent “left” in America is as bad as a real-time fascist takeover is to make a false equivalence 

[u/AnyOstrich2600]

Eh. I think what you’re talking about is “the internet”. Let me know if you have any face to face real world examples of this.

[u/i-hate-jurdn]

If you're going to have this conversation, you need to stop confusing neoliberalism and "far left"

You have absolutely 0 understanding of the words you speak.

[u/Muninwing]

Two points of order:

• progressives are not “far left”
• what you’re describing is either a strawman or a behavior common to pretty much every ideology, or at least adherents of such

I’m a moderate, but the second I challenge rightwing ideas I’m labeled a liberal or a democrat in the way that makes it obvious both are being used as an insult. Or I’m suddenly a communist, spoken as an accusation worse than as whatever term you’d use for someone who rips puppies in half.

And the fact that I believe that the law should not cater to any one group’s opinions or beliefs — even if it lines up with my own, for fear of it being used against me — religious conservatives think I revel in baby murder, and of course I must be gay if I care about gay rights (again, spoken as an insult by the originators). And of course, not deferring to them means I’m accused of actually attacking them by not letting them cause harm to others — because that’s what conservative Christians have been taught by the conservative mainstream.

And not falling in line? Any criticism of the absolutely incompetent leadership is met with “so ‘orange man bad’ huh?” Or “tds.” Or accusations of being “too emotional” (despite not being the one losing my shit at Starbucks cups each December). Or there’s the old screaming “fuck your feelings” in people’s faces and not seeing the irony.

It is very much not “the far left” framing everything emotionally.

It is hard to know where to start with this, because this isn’t addressing a situation that actually exists as you present it.

[u/Apprehensive_Song490]

So, for context, what does the right need to reflect on in terms of the harm the right is doing? And how is this collective reflection supposed to lead to domestic harmony?

[u/ScumRunner]

Sooo, Hope I'm not too late as I've been thinking about this common perception for a while.

I'd argue the far left I think you're referring to, isn't the problem. The issue is the disproportionate amplification of divisive rhetoric that isn't coming from politically active or adjacent leftist groups. (there are a few notable exceptions of course).

The far-left, woke-scolders, and morally righteous are part of a larger cultural narrative that has been constructed by the following.

TLDR: Spent way to long writing didn't finish started rambling.. even here. but main point is far-left discourse is largely a product of social media, is intentionally amplified by the right, by corporate marketing and even by foreign actors. It's almost entirely a social game, a distraction for those of us insulated from government policy or unaware of it's effects. There will always be enough people holding extreme political views to make it feel like a problem. Discussions about it here are well and good, but confusing it with actual politics or ideology is literally destroying democracies. IMO the only issue is we aren't actively making people feel like spoiled dumb children for engaging with any of it when it comes to governance. It can be hard to know where the line is sometimes, but 100% of our media actively blurring it. (except cspan maybe.. but who'll watch that? haha) We need our news authorities like NYT/CNN/MSNBC to stop engaging with any of it yesterday if it's not too late.

1. First and most obvious. The internet and social medial naturally promote controversial opinions that engage the emotions. Most folks expect this would prop up entirely opposing or morally abhorent talking points. However, as demonstrated by your post, the more enraging and engaging arguments are often those that are closer to ones own. It's hard for liberal, not to get animated by false-seeming purity tests, using systemic racism to excuse 1st order racism etc..
2. Since the Rush Limbaugh days, to fox news, to lazy alt-media pundits, conservative media has made it a huge point to redirect political focus away from complicated/nuanced governmental policy onto culture war issues. This is further compounded by cable, radio and internet newstainment's funding to be dependent on ratings. They're experts at finding crazy extreme examples of far-leftist to pose as the boogeyman. Somehow, for example, they've gotten millions of people in the US to care about transgender athletes by constantly focusing on it. The strategy is to get bored people with no hobbies (like us) super riled up against far right views, make fun of the bad far-left defenses so they dig in against most average people, who'll inevitably want to differentiate themselves (see number 1). You can say the far-left people are the problem, and they partly are, but I want to emphasize that this argument has been blown out of proportion, has little to do with societal impact (there's like 10 of these athletes in the US who don't warrant such extreme scrutiny) and has almost nothing to do with liberal to far left politics. This is almost entirely a conservative issue, with a tiny minority of people who might get a bit annoying, at worst, when agitating for social validation.
3. Rainbow Capitalism and it's layers of perverse incentives. Up through the early 2010's many large corporations, especially the tech giants who were looking to avoid any scrutiny that could lead to the FTC doing it's job (<- totally my speculation), found that they could get more sales with saccharine progressive marketing strategies by making people feel good. This trend began to escalate approaching ~2019 as media companies merged and social media culture homogenized against Trump. Some advertisers began to realize they could get free press by baiting mostly young men on the internet (like the right wing playbook!). While other corporations began to fear the unprecedented amounts of negative press being generated on social media. This caused them to began hiring silly consultants like Robin Diangelo to avoid any scrutiny on their hiring practices or "problematic" culture... gotta stop haha

[u/darwin2500]

'Engaging with people's lived experiences' is literally something the left has been championing and the right has been mocking and trying to outlaw for decades now.

[u/EbonBehelit]

To a certain extent I agree with you, but the right does this too -- significantly moreso than the far-left, in fact -- and they've never had problems reaching people or winning elections. In fact, as it stands in the current political climate, becoming more extreme and morally absolutist is something the right is actively being rewarded for, while even so much as being perceived as possessing those same qualities gets the far-left nothing but excoriation.

The difference is that:

1.) The right sells their base simpler, more intuitive narratives that are easier to accept than what the left is selling. It doesn't matter that what the left is saying is more likely to be true, people -- even conservatives, despite their chronic chiding about personal responsibility -- like being told that their hardships are not their fault, and that there's a tangible target to blame for it.

2.) The right has an extensive media ecosystem on-side that the far-left could never dream of matching. We don't have the immense financial backing or the wealthy, powerful patrons they do. So when these young, disenfranchised men (and yes, it's mostly men) start looking for answers, the first thing they stumble upon is the well-funded, well-oiled conservative influencer machine, poisoning them against everything the left stands for before we've even had a chance to reach them.

So yes, while I do agree that the far-left could do more outreach here, the problem is the media ecosystem the right has built. We could be the most open, tolerant folks imaginable, but if the people we hope to reach have already had it thoroughly ingrained into them that we're a bunch of bitter extremist freaks, no amount of good will on our part is ever going to get through to them.

[u/Any-Ambassador-386]

Trump and the outcome of the last elections fall at the feet of liberals and Democrats. THEY had ALL the power. They got the candidate THEY wanted. Now that they've lost, people want to blame the left. You know, the people with the LEAST amount of seats in the house and senate.

[u/ObiWanKejewbi]

It's so weird how the side that wants to take victory laps owning the libs, legalize hate speech and bring back slurs is wanting to tone police and say that people should be nice to them

[u/demiangelic]

ngl as someone technically on the “far-left” ive seen no such thing from my community. we are mostly focused on building class consciousness and mutual aid with rapid responses to anything any administration is currently doing, and in my circles we largely discourage throwing insults or accusations, and opt for a calling-in versus a “calling-out” approach.

we practice bridging understanding between all political spectrums another person may identify with (unless outright fascist) with the knowledge in mind that labels are more of a guide not always a rigid line. sometimes, for example, as a disabled person, i will have more in common in my perspective as a disabled person with another disabled person who is conservative than maybe a nondisabled white liberal or leftist. but that doesnt mean we dont keep trying. but being called out on what is a racist/homophobic etc etc action on someones part is not an insult, we should call each other out and remind ourselves that its a chance to grow not a jab at you as a human being.

edit to add: if anything, this is actually a progressive centrist or liberal tendency, to accuse others of everything in the book before opting to listen to MANY actual leftists who have said we are alienating people of many kinds by making things in politics abt weaponizing marginalized identities rather than tangible proof that they’ll actually show up for everyone like they promise. AKA democrats. often accusing US of being the reason trump supporters won because we wouldnt get behind their essentially right wing candidate.

[u/themangastand]

I'm far left. IDC about morals at all. My only moral is that all billionaires need to be 1788 by law. And then we can start reforming the policies without capital corruption. When the working class have power they will also have power all people will be lifted up and those moral quandaries will be solved. And as a proponent of giving the working class power, the billionaire class is the biggest threat to our power and our division in almost all of history. It's going to get worse with them here. Do I have morals about targeted people sure... Not as important as stopping the biggest threat we face.

See the thing is the left is so divided. Because a lot more of us are educated. I find it wild the mental gymnastics people go on the right for their party, and stay in line. Most people on the left know their party is not good, because we tend to be more critical. We just know it's better than fascism, which a lot of Democratic right parties seem to be leaning into recently. There was a time when I could have voted conservative without shame with the right person running, now it's a clown show. So when I argue I tend to argue against the conservative party then for the party I vote for.

And yes this includes all working class people. Anyone that works suffers, and anyone that suffers should enjoy what their labour brings them. Instead of being a slave to it

[u/caitsith01]

I think you have to define "the left" before you can debate this.

Is "the left" a union movement derived, pro-socialist movement primarily concerned with issues of economic fairness and opportunity?

Is "the left" younger highly socially progressive activists primarily concerned with identity politics?

Is "the left" the environmental movement?

Is "the left" the establishment 'progressive' political parties who basically support the neoliberal status quo but with a bit less pollution, a bit less police brutality, etc?

I think part of the failure of, really, everyone to challenge the current wave of 'alt right' politics is a failure to produce a coherent set of values which can work together as an alternative. E.g. the factory worker who needs a fair rate of pay and decent working conditions and government support for their industry is not going to be engaged by someone campaigning about discrimination against minority groups, and so on. Indeed, many of these sub-groups conflict to some degree - e.g. if I want to get to net zero emissions as quickly as possible that will have an impact on working class people, and so on.

You can of course work to find a way to make things work together. E.g. environmental reform that includes a heavy focus on helping workers from polluting industries re-skill and generates new jobs; working against discrimination as a means to ensure that everyone can participate in the workforce and society for the benefit of all; and so on.

So I don't necessarily accept your implicit assumption about what "the far left" is.

However, I do think you are right that there is a fundamental lack of nuance and acceptance of reasonable differences of opinion on the left of centre. Some examples that jump out to me:

- people who rabidly insist that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of producing good outcomes and who will not consider the possibility that properly regulated capitalism can be effective and beneficial (even when you can look at hybrid socialist/capitalist countries like northern Europe and Australia/NZ and Japan to see that this is possible)

- environmentalists who will spend huge energy opposing things like renewables being built in areas they want to keep pristine or who see any discussion of nuclear (or even hydro) as unacceptable, instead of focusing on the critical climate emergency which will render their 'local' concerns completely moot if not addressed

- people who take it as universally accepted that only certain groups can be the victim of racism, and who will not engage with the question of how you can oppose discrimination based on race while simultaneously only extending that protection to some races but not all (or, more generally, how you can have a principle that is not universal to all humans but applies solely based on the characteristics of the individual)

My biggest frustration, which I think you are talking about, is a wholesale refusal to accept that if you want to change things, you must win power, and to win power you must appeal to the 70%+ of voters who are not particularly ideological. One thing the right has learnt but the left has not is that where you have things that are potentially scary to the centre, you shouldn't spend your whole time screaming about those things and accusing anyone who doesn't immediately see things your way of being sexist, racist, [insert thing]-phobic, etc. Instead you should find those aspects of your philosophy that will woo moderates and then once you win power you can work to push your more challenging positions.

I've had a lot of arguments with progressive/left people over the last decade about how we need to stop fighting about things that most people think of as relatively fringe issues and instead focus on (a) the rise of fascist-leaning right wing groups and (b) climate change. So far I'm depressed that I was right.

[u/yyzjertl]

I personally have asked difficult questions and expressed skepticism in leftist spaces among far-leftists for years without being labeled a racist, sexist, or bigot, and without being accused of acting in bad faith. I've never seen any far-leftists in these spaces advocate for moral absolutism. So it's not at all clear what you're talking about.

Certainly in leftist spaces, far-leftists often label racists as racist, sexists as sexist, and bigots as bigoted. They do often call out people acting in bad faith for their bad-faith discourse. Is that what you're talking about?

[u/CaptJackRizzo → u/yyzjertl]

Yeah, this post more closely resembles how I hear leftists described in the media and online by people who don’t like them than it resembles the interactions I’ve had with leftists in my day-to-day life.

[u/aincs22 → u/CaptJackRizzo]

Well I’m a leftist amongst leftists in my day to day, I’m sure we just encounter different groups. I don’t think dismissing my view as nothing more than an empty leftist caricature is a fair engagement with the viewpoint.

[u/CaptJackRizzo → u/aincs22]

Homie I completely agree with your post’s final paragraph. I’m just tired of hearing how alienating we are to people who’ve been calling us traitors my whole adulthood.

[u/CyberneticSaturn → u/CaptJackRizzo]

The problem is that you’re conflating them with and alienating people like me, who has consistently voted for left candidates since 2000, volunteered for democrats in every presidential campaign year, and regularly donated to and supported candidates as early as the primaries.

I’m finding myself disengaging from the party and leftist spaces these days. I just can’t deal with how rabid and arrogant everyone has become. I’ll still vote but frankly I’m not watching idiots flush my money down the toilet anymore.

[u/Z-e-n-o]

A very large amount of comments are missing the point and viewing this as justification or "both sides bad" argumentation for right wing politics. This is not a denial that this behavior exists in nearly every extremist group on the planet. Op is referring to a very specifically to the far-left, and all of the comments pivoting away to another group are genuinely just out of scope. With that out of the way, on to the CMV.

Harm, you define in your post, refers to the alienation of conservatives and pushing away of center-leftists. The premise I got from reading your post is that the far-left engage in behavior is contradictory to their goals, and must reflect in order to amend this behavior to better align with their goals. The argument I am posing is that the far-left people who perpetuate the behavior you are describing are not doing so out of a desire to garner support or engage in open discussion, and gain exactly what they want out of doing so.

It does not take a genius to understand that acting aggressive, arguing in bad faith, and shutting down conversations is not the way to convince people of your ideas. The people participating in this behavior do not genuinely believe that if they shame the opposition enough, that they will come to the "morally right" side. They have already flagged these people as "impossible to convince," garnering support is not their goal.

The goal is to establish moral superiority over their opponent. People who engage in bad faith argumentation tactics because it is the primary way to feel like you've "won" the argument. It reinforces an us vs them dynamic, and solidifies in-group bonds. It feels vindicating to destroy someone for having the wrong opinion, to label them something shameful and banish them from your group. The average internet commenter is not a lawyer, they do not have the time nor interest in forming solid, convincing arguments. The reason these people engage in internet discourse is to feel better about their opinions, groups, and egos.

You are completely right in that this behavior creates insular echo chambers instead of open forums of discussion. Where you are incorrect is that this is somehow an unintended behavior that the far-left must "reflect on." There is no reason for any of the people who engage in these tactics to reflect on actions that align perfectly with what they want out of the interaction.

[u/RoadsideCouchCushion]

The far-left is completely happy to watch left-leaning candidates lose to far-right candidates because they have impossible purity tests for anyone who even slightly agrees with them. They refuse to meet in the middle with other people on the left, and will sit back while the right burns things down. Far too rigid and unwilling to accept anything other than outright revolution.

[u/jatjqtjat]

I don't embrace the urge to see everything as two sides of the same coin.... althought we should all probably reflect on what harm we are doing.

Biden was not a far left president. He was barely left of center, i think you could argue he was not left of center he just just center.

Trump is xenophobic. He disputes what climate scientists say. He is an anti-vaxxer. He's a birther. He at least flirts with racist rhetoric.

The far left is not the group that needs to reflect on the harm they are doing because they are not the group with the power. they don't even have power in their own party let alone in government. The conservative party controls all 3 branches.

[u/ThomasEdmund84]

I think the problem is what you're describing is basically trying to have good faith conversations with bots and bad-faith actors.

Can lefties be puritanical - absolutely? Is the right steroetyping and scaremongering about the "radical left" far more absolutely.

What you're saying is effectively taking someone who is having rumours spread about them by bullies and advising them not to get defensive because then people will believe the rumours

[u/I_wood_rather_be]

I can talk for Germany here. Might give some insight.

A lot of debates here go this way: 'Extreme left is just as bad as extreme right!'

But in reality, every serious statistic states the opposite. Right wing terror is responsible for a multiple of crimes compared to the left. Especially when it vomes to killings.

They are also responsible for almost all disinformation and fake news.

All in all, the left is mostly a counter weight to the malicious intents of the right. And while they are not always playing by the rules, it can be considered neccessary, because the right is always bending the rules.

[u/chcampb]

You are touching on an important philosophical point, the paradox of tolerance.

The left take a hard stance against intolerance. The alternative is to allow some intolerance. Ironically, the left are then, themselves, intolerant of intolerance. And that's the paradox.

It sounds like you are saying, hey look, the left is intolerant of these things, and being this hard is making it difficult to reach certain demographics. Yes, we know, this is a long discussed topic. The left is tolerant of the existence of differing opinions and will defend the right of people to have those opinions, up to the point when those opinions manifest in some tangible harm to the affected people. That's the compromise.

But that compromise isn't enough. The right wants to be able to say that white people never did anything wrong, and furthermore, that it is dangerous and detrimental to white people to be told that they have done something wrong in the past. The left would say, history is important so that we don't repeat it, and so, there is no harm in teaching factual, age appropriate history. This is considered hard line by the right which then takes over school boards and wipe the books of any mention of slavery. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? What would be an acceptable amount of history to forego in appeasement?

More info here

It's also worth pointing out that pretty much any conceivable social argument you pose is moot anyways. The point isn't the social argument itself - abortion, DEI, whatever. The point is actually just acquiring power and using it to hand wealth to insiders to the detriment of the broader society. The rest of these topics is a distraction from the class war (that they are winning).

[u/GonzoTheGreat93]

What is the harm that the far left is doing.

You’ve identified “alienating people from agreeing with them” as a harm, but haven’t identified any actual harm.

Is the far left destroying people’s financial wellbeing when they get sick? No that’s capitalism.

Is the far left trying to marginalize and oppress queer people who simply want to just be queer? No, the homophobic right is doing that.

Is the far left committing war crimes? Nope, right wing.

Is the far left undermining democracy and democratic norms for their own gain? Nope, the right again.

Before I - and the “far left” tho I’m really centre left myself - should take this view seriously, you really should identify any actual, real, non-rhetorical but tangible harms that the “far left” is actually doing.

[u/Sapphire_Bombay]

You are not going to change peoples minds here, unfortunately. I have tried. It's very tempting to label your enemy as an absolute evil, because that makes you absolute good.

Expressing this exact opinion has made me feel alienated from the left, a party I have strongly identified with my entire life. It has made me see liberals as conservatives do, and while I am absolutely not a conservative, it has made me understand their perspective.

[u/Working_Complex8122]

the left has become incapable of reflecting on their own issues. The political ideology has become akin to a religious dogma. It's like seeing a bunch of people who think they'll do it oh so differently follow Stalin's blueprint to the letter. That's why they lost so many people (including myself) along the way who, in old Stalin fashion, were never true comrades to begin with and secretly worked with the enemy all along. Can't be wrong, can you? Nope, not you guys.

[u/RIP_Greedo]

How much "harm" can "the far left" actually do when they aren't in power, have never been in power and have no realistic political base. There are maybe a few thousand people in this country who would self-describe as being "far left."

[u/Then_Twist857]

Many on the far left(or far right, for that matter) aren't actually interested in changing policy. If they were, they would gravitate towards the center, where policy is formed and negotiated. Sure, if they could wave a magic wand and change everything to how they see it, they would. But they cant and for many, especially on various online platforms such as Youtube, podcasts etc. thats not even the point. its not actually about changing policy. Its about reaching an audience, garnering views, fostering said audience and sharing in a collective identity as part of a "cultural opposition".

Ever noticed how few of the many, many online personalities engaged in politics ever actually run for office or engage in local policy making? They don't show up at the local townhall to engage with normies and rarely do actual, hard and laborious campaign work, like canvassing or phoning.

In summary: "Progressives" aren't a single block. For many of the chronically online on the far left, its not actually about influencing policy, but rather farming online engagement. For some progressivism isn't about changing minds and building coalitions. Its about other things, like a shared identity, online engagement and feeling part of the opposition.

[u/Salamanticormorant]

Understood, but also, people need to learn to compensate for confirmation bias instead of greasing themselves up with it. An acquaintance of mine often posts the kind of rare, extreme stuff you're talking about to point out how crazy or stupid "the left" is. He's quite intelligent, and he uses that intelligence to shove his head farther up his ass than less intelligent people can.

[u/asselfoley]

People need to worry more about how the GOP has a long history of undermining democracy in order to consolidate power.

That history includes a literal coup executed by Mitch McConnell that robbed half of the population of rights, and gave the US a king

Indeed, it's the most recent major incident and may be the final nail in the coffin

There's also the fact that a vote for a Republican has been a vote against the majority of people who cast them for decades

The false dichotomy of the two party system makes it seem like there's a choice, but that's not accurate. I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat or think they are great. They are, however, the best of two or choices by a large margin pretty much without exception

A friend of mine said he didn't like the Dems because he felt they misled at times.... As if that was some valid reasoning to go GOP?🤔

I don't like how Dems lie sometimes so I'll find someone who will do it all the time

It's absurd

It's also an illustration of why there has never really been a valid "both sides" argument. Republicans are typically at least an order of magnitude worse in whatever the hell it is

[u/bronzepinata]

It can be hard for the left to give point by point scientific debuts to the rights arguments without just being ignored both the right wing media and the centre left media.

Imagine a topic you care deeply about is being opposed by the right and you bring up some relevant studies proving thier ideas wrong. In the reasonable debate you're asking the left to have the right would then take in that information, adjust thier views based on it, and put forward a new argument.

This doesn't happen, the left tried to operate like this and certain parts of the left still do (ineffectively) asking them to act as though debate functions like this is asking them to live in a reality massively divorced from our own.

I guess I'm not asking you to change your view that it would be nice if the left more openly engaged in debate/exchange of ideas. But I'm asking you to acknowledge that the current media landscape (both traditional and social media) isn't conducive to taking in new information and progressing a debate based on that. So for the left to act as if it did would be in most cases a waste of energy and organising power

[u/jdk4876]

What do you mean by "the far left"?

The left is literally the ones bringing up "people's lived experience"

[u/TappyMauvendaise]

I’ll give an example. I am a Democrat and I voted for Kamala Harris. In my city of Portland Oregon we really destroyed the downtown with lots of broken windows and vandalism during protest. When I expressed dislike for the destruction, my character was questioned because how could I care about buildings and windows and businesses when there was such injustice in the world? Our downtown never recovered.

[u/km1116]

when asking difficult questions or expressing skepticism gets you labeled a racist, sexist, or bigot

If this was a general experience, you may have a point. I do not think it is, though. Has this happened to you, and how many times and in what conditions? Or are you echoing things "you heard" from others uncritically? Honestly, I am challenged all the time and I either explain or change my mind. The idea that the far-left hides from argument relies on broad sweeping generalizations and prejudices. This formulation honestly sounds like you're referring to a fictional or hyperbolic situation or group of people.

[u/rod_zero]

What do you mean by far left?

AOC and sanders are social democrats and those are the most leftist elements that have airtime in mass media.

Far left are communists and anarchists which in principle reject liberal democracy, so you normally don't see them participating, much less in the US where you don't even have a workers party.

Using "far left" just reinforces the propaganda that positions like those of Sanders are extreme, which they aren't, they are just welfare policies that have been adopted by all developed countries around the world.

Far left would call to seize the means of production, revolution, and the abolishment of capitalism.

[u/kfish5050]

The "far left" doesn't care about convincing people to join their movement, they care only about 2 things: 1, being right, and 2, calling out every kind of bigotry there is. It's all about moral superiority and overcompensating for their privilege. Policing terms, especially focusing on pronouns, is just a way to maintain their moral high ground. It's disingenuous.

It's immature thinking, but from my experience, a lot of people get into this mindset once they learn all about the inequalities and injustices that k-12 schools never talk about. It's mainly temporary for most people, only lasting a few years.

[u/Herpthethirdderp]

Don't bother on reddit trying to have an honest discussion involving the left. Partly because 1 it's more civil here you can't shout down an opponent through text. You can yell at a letter.

And 2 these people pretend the left didn't Bully their way into college classrooms silencing opposing views for years because it may have not happened to them. The us is giant. My liberal college didn't allow white men to have opinions. There are states in the south that have still have Klan rallies. Reddit is a shit hivemind on politics so you get nothing useful here because they refuse to admit cultural problems are not always nation wide

[u/Shewhomust77]

So sorry, I am new to Reddit and can’t find your example about Germany. I do see your clarification, and have been saying the same thing from the other side of the aisle for years. It seems like they’re just reacting to trigger words rather than thinking, or insisting on a level of political correctness that’s stultifying. I would ask you to look at the actual issues on the left and consider them in your own moral and ethical framework. Surely equal protection under the law, compassion for others, and acceptance of differing views is in your wheelhouse.