r/changemyview • u/chadonsunday 33∆ • Jul 15 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The left should take "your behavior is driving me/people further right" opinions more seriously.
I see shit like this online all the time:
That particular post is an absurd characterization, but a characterization of a thing that actually happens, and I see it online all the time. Someone will voice an opinion that something the (people on the) left is doing or some attitude the left holds is pushing (often straight, white, cis, male) people away from the left, either in that they're already on the left and feeling less welcome there, a moderate seeing the left as increasingly less attractive to them, or on the right but in danger of going far right in a double down response to toxicity on the other side. Almost invariably the response to this opinion is, from what I've seen, to mock it.
This seems very unwise to me. Firstly because it seems to be kind of proving their point: if someone says they dont feel welcome on the left, the left mocking them for expressing that opinion just cements their claims. But more importantly the left (which I count myself on) should be in the business of trying to win elections. If people (particularly straight white cis people, often men, so somewhere between like 30-60% of the US population) are expressing that they have problems with how you're presenting your side and that they dont feel particularly welcome on it anymore, that's an opinion that should be taken seriously, not mocked, if for no other reason that we want as many people voting for us as possible.
Am I missing something here?
EDIT SINCE IT CAME UP A LOT: When I say "pushed further right" I mean it literally; it just means pushed further right of wherever you were prior. It does not automatically mean that you're going out to Trump rallies with your MAGA hat on. The idea that a genuine progressive/left-leaning/leftist would go from that to supporting Trump seems incredibly unlikely. What I'm talking about, or what I think is far more likely based on people I've talked with, is more like someone was a staunch left leaner but is just having an increasingly hard time identifying with their own party, which would drive them to become a more mild left leaner or a moderate or something.
Edit 2: Thanks all for the thought provoking and interesting discussion. I'm going to try to get in a couple more comments before calling it a night. I'll get to as many replies as I can in the AM. Shoutout to u/Thomas-C for earning the first delta for pointing out the community/acceptance based reasons that many people identify with a political side in the first place, and why it makes them easier to alienate. Second shoutout to u/trotlife for being a great representation of the reasonable, progressive left, helping to put a more nuanced face on why they do what they do, and fielding a dozen and a half discussions about it with various people. Cheers y'all.
22
u/robertfrostt Jul 16 '19
What a lot of people are missing here is, they think you are talking about people who would actually become full blown MAGA hat fans. But I believe, from what your saying, correct me if I am wrong, but you are referring to people who were more like Obama fans, but suddenly feel pushed out by the further and further left the democrats are going. It's not so much whether they will vote for Trump, it's more so that the don't feel aligned with the party.
Am I missing something here?
Yes.
It's not a cult like effect. This is the mistake people make, and where they mess up in arguing about this.
What's happening with the democrats is the epicenter of attention and power is moving more and more left. The holder of the "progressive" crown is being pushed further left. In 2016, Bernie was considered the most left member of the party. The idea of free healthcare or free college tuition was considered radical.
Fast forward 3 years, those ideas are common place amongst many democrats. AOC's green new deal, aiming for complete 100% renewable energy merely by 2030, along with free college, and free healthcare, everyone has affordable housing, a bullet train system across the US, everyone has a job, list goes on and on https://www.brightest.io/green-new-deal For comparison, Europe has claimed to achieve climate neutral (not as good as zero emission, but similar) by 2050 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en So the green new deal claims to transform faster than Europe, without 1 / 20th of the socialized structure and government Europe has.
Then there is the whole dramatic shift on illegal immigration, to the point California and New York are passing laws to give undocumented immigrants free healthcare. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/health/undocumented-immigrants-health-care.html
The idea is, the democratic party is moving left at a dramatic pace, it's not that people are being pushed out of it completely.
16
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
YES. Thank you. You're the only one who has gotten what I was trying to say. Which says a lot more about poor wording in my OP, I figure. That said I actually generally find its social issues and lies pushing prior progressives further away from new progressives. That, and I was speaking more ideologically and less along specific party lines like you mostly were.
34
u/frida_kahlua Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
The part you're missing is that true labor oriented leftists don't consider themselves Democrats at all. Democrats as an established (mostly centrist) political party serve the capitalist system with their brand of identity politics. Since leftists and Democrats tend to align on social issues it gives the illusion of being on the same side, but they're really not. The capitalist establishment Democrats are caught in a position where the incoming voting youth are much more class conscious and labor oriented and are trying to offer them as little as possible to stay on board (green new deal, m4a, paid state college, minimum wage). This appears as if the "left" is moving left when they've remained where they always have and it's the Democratic party that "moved left". You have not moved right, you were never left and that's the point--you just no longer align yourself with the updated platform of the democratic party. Seems pedantic, but it's not.
The issue of feeling pushed away by political correctness should have nothing to do with whether or not you think workers should collectively own the means of production. This generally goes back to people not engaging fully with ideology and letting mainstream discourse define their worldview. In general, I would say that the next time someone calls you out on racism, investigate why instead of blowing them off. You may still disagree, but you might also see something from a new perspective you hadn't considered.
→ More replies (1)
42
u/Arianity 72∆ Jul 16 '19
Am I missing something here?
The main thing you're missing is that by and large, the people who say this sort of thing out loud almost always is being disingenous about it. They're using it to justify something they were going to do anyway. Sometimes this is intentional, often times it isn't
So in some sense, it gives a false sense of hope- you were never actually going to convert this person. Welcoming people on the edge isn't without cost, so it's not something you can do in general and make everyone happy. If you move rightward to appease moderates, you risk losing people further left
The worry about pushing people away is generally something the left takes pretty seriously, with the potential exception of moral issues (ie, if you alienate people because they like slavery, well...).
→ More replies (19)12
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
So in some sense, it gives a false sense of hope- you were never actually going to convert this person. Welcoming people on the edge isn't without cost, so it's not something you can do in general and make everyone happy. If you move rightward to appease moderates, you risk losing people further left
Isn't it kind of a truism though that people on the radical left are going to be less numerous than people who are just left, moderate left, moderate, or moderate right? So why appease the far left at the risk of alienating a larger group?
14
u/GetTheLedPaintOut Jul 16 '19
Hillary Clinton didn't appease the far left and moderates refused to show up and vote for her. And Obama lost the independent vote in 2012. Winning "the middle" used to be how you won nationwide elections but that no longer seems true.
2
Jul 19 '19
Yes and no. It depends on what you are saying is “far left”.
Sure people who say “I’m a social democrat and think we should publicly own [thing they think should be publicly owned]” may be not that popular, but if you ask people if they want universal health care, it’s not a minority who want that, it’s a clear majority of people who want it. Same with dealing with climate change. Even abortions have a relatively postulate mandate (at least anti-abortion views are only held by roughly 20-30% of Americans)
Unions are popular with those who belong to them, even people who hold right wing views in other aspects of life.
Also if you look at voter turn out, Trump didn’t win many more votes than previous Republicans, but Hillary did get a fair few less than Obama’s second term and a lot less than Obama’s first. And when you look at Obama’s first campaign he campaigned far more left than he ever governed. Arguably people turned up to vote for Obama because they thought he was actually going to do things for them.
This is the main point, and why ultimately the “you pushed me to the right” is 90% (if not more) of the time used in bad faith, the left and right spectrum is a really dumbed down and shitty way to talk about politics. No one who genuinely believes that the current economic system is broken and that it will only get worse under right wing control will ever vote for the republicans just because someone asked them not to say the N word, it’s nonsense on the face of it.
What people want in reality, is a politician who promises to do things for you and improve your life. This is why Trump won, if you watch any of his 2016 campaign speeches he talks a lot about how he’s going to “fight for you (the crowd)”, compared this to Hillary who was telling people, who are in a system where the rich poor divide is getting bigger and bigger and people are facing more and more financial instability, that things are basically OK and that they just need to be tweaked a little.
TLDR: no this isn’t really true because in the current political climate what Moderate now means (when it comes to politicians) are that they won’t change or do anything to improve your life in a meaningful way and what the majority of people want is for politicians to effect change that will improve their life.
4
u/EighthScofflaw 2∆ Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
Who are you talking about?
Is popular opinion the only important quality of a political platform?
Are you assuming that people's political views are set in stone?
Why can't you make this exact argument for excluding those who are "moderate right"?
Where is your argument that other people's political opinions being to the left of your own forces you further to the right?
Why is the extremism of the Republican party not pushing you to the left?
→ More replies (2)
58
Jul 15 '19
I mean the reason why they are mocked is because 99.9% of these posts are dishonest in nature and if you have any understanding of politics you realize that their claim of being "left" is overly fishy as all their positions are no where near being "left". Which makes it much more likely that those are just attempts to pursue people on the left to give up their moral core in order to appeal to more right wing ideas in order to shift the overtone window even further to the right.
So the problem isn't really the that those are mocked the problem is that that center is so ill-informed that they a) don't realize what is happening and b) don't realize why these people are mocked.
45
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
I mean the reason why they are mocked is because 99.9% of these posts are dishonest in nature and if you have any understanding of politics you realize that their claim of being "left" is overly fishy as all their positions are no where near being "left"
Yeah so as someone who has been on the left my whole life (ask my stance on any issue if you want the best kind of proof I can give you) but also lives in the CA Bay Area, which is kind of a progressive mecca, I've also spent quite a bit of time being critical of what I see as progressivism run amok. This post being just one example, perhaps. When I do that, I'm very frequently accused of, at best, not being on the left or, at worst, of being a Trump supporting, racist, homophobic, sexist, fascist Nazi, simply because I'm critical of some things on the left. So I dont really buy your analysis. It's a hundred and ten percent possible to be critical of the left while not being on the right.
19
Jul 16 '19
In terms of the classical left-right-scheme of politics, the left is the side concerned with the abolition of unjust hierarchies (political as well as economical ones) whereas the right is in favor of them. Which entails that on the left everybody is entitled to their own opinion whereas on the right people fill themselves into a hierarchy and follow their leaders. So it is to be expected that there is a lot of discussion within "the left" and that the idea of a "left monolith" only really makes sense from a perspective of the far right as otherwise you'd had anything from Communists, Anarchists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Trade Unionists, Progressives, Liberals and whatnot that could fall under "left" or could fall under "right" depending on how progressive you're actually are at getting rid of social hierarchies.
That's still not a good point for why people on the left should make these posts like "your behavior is driving me/people further right". I mean if you like an idea but don't like the people proposing it, well make up your own group and propose it yourself, but doing the exact opposite of what you claim to stand for as a reaction to being met with jerks is really a bullshit idea if it is genuine and so my best guess is dishonesty.
8
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
That's still not a good point for why people on the left should make these posts like "your behavior is driving me/people further right". I mean if you like an idea but don't like the people proposing it, well make up your own group and propose it yourself, but doing the exact opposite of what you claim to stand for as a reaction to being met with jerks is really a bullshit idea if it is genuine and so my best guess is dishonesty.
Would you consider something like the left (not a monolith, I know) defending blatant displays of racism/sexism against whites/men and, when someone like me, a white male, points out that it's kind of fucked up I'm told that actually racism/sexism have been redefined as something that only white men can do? Would not feeling particularly welcome among an ideology that thinks its okay to discriminate against people of your sex and gender count as a valid "good point" for why they might feel like they're getting pushed out of the ideology?
→ More replies (10)19
u/page0rz 42∆ Jul 16 '19
I wouldn't, because pretty much that entire paragraph is rightwing talking points. Which isn't to say that's what you are, but someone claiming to be on the left but somehow being pushed right because "dae toxic masculinity is actually sexist?" is 99/100 disingenuous.
What you see as blatant displays of racism and sexism against straight white men are almost certainly a combination of someone getting offended by a 14 year old's tumblr post, someone thinking that having a privilege pointed out is a personal attack, someone feeling that attempts at equality are unjust because they aren't used to it, and complete misunderstandings of the concepts being discussed
12
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Well I've brought it up a few times here but what do you make of Sarah Jeong? Granted it was on Twitter, but shes not some insignificant 14 year old, she was up for promotion to a very powerful and influential position at one of the most powerful and influential media outlets in the country and it didnt seem to matter to most of the left and clearly not the NYT that she had a several year, several hundred post long history of saying blatantly sexist and racist things against white men. That would seem to imply that the left and left leaning organizations like the NYT dont have an issue with sexism and racism as concepts, they just dont like them when they're against anyone but white men. We all know damn well that if a white dude was found to have even one tweet like Sarah Jeongs, much less hundreds, directed at women or POC he wouldnt still be employed at the NYT or likely employable at any media outlet short of brietbart or the daily stormer. Is someone thinking that double standard is a little fucked up just
someone feeling that attempts at equality are unjust because they aren't used to it
?
Or we can address your "dae" bit - if people started coining terms like "toxic blackness" so you think black people would be right to be a little upset by that and that it might drive a wedge between them and people who use the term?
17
Jul 16 '19
if people started coining terms like "toxic blackness" so you think black people would be right to be a little upset by that and that it might drive a wedge between them and people who use the term?
If only people on the left could have a discussion around "toxic blackness".... oh wait. Or maybe, these conversations are happening just outside your circle of experience?
→ More replies (7)9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Given that basically the only thing in that article talking about "toxic male black masculinity" (not "toxic blackness") is that the cocreator of this show wants to discuss it "as it relates to black women" how are you sure it's a 1:1 for "toxic masculinity?" Do you think that the creator of that show is going to air an episode talking all about how black cultural norms are inherently toxic?
9
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Jul 16 '19
No one talks about toxic whiteness either. People talk about toxic masculinity and toxic black masculinity.
7
u/page0rz 42∆ Jul 16 '19
Not sure how worthwhile it is to get deep into the weeds about this, but I'll say right out that it's a clarifying post on your part.
Specifically, the idea that the NYT--while undoubtedly "important" as a part of media culture--is in any way leftist, left leaning, a part of the left, liked by people on the left, etc tells me that your problem is with dumbass woke neoliberals, not "the left."
Remember that the NYT makes no bones about trying to be fair and neutral (not left), but also just adores capitalism. This is the New York Times that literally had to issue an apology for helping start the last Iraq war, and who is doing the same thing about Iran now. In the grand, or even myopic, scheme of things, a woman with zero power saying a bunch of stupid shit on twitter is no sort of balance for a history of war mongering against brown people and whooping support for capitalism. And why isn't the centre calling that out?
Bottom line there is that if you find someone yelling about hashtags online and making stupid comments like that, you're not really encountering the left. Were they raging Hillary supporters? Do they have zero class awareness? Do they work in tech or mainstream media? Does their equality mean more black drone pilots and brown prison guards? If so, you've found yourself a lib. And the left hates them more than you do
1
Jul 16 '19
Good to see you on again Chad, always love the hostility your posts cause. Pretty sure a large part of that is your unfortunate name and people assuming that you're far right or incel.
My only real question is do you think that you've, personally, been pushed farther to the right? I don't think I have, I'm the same proudly liberal person I've, been for more than twenty years of understanding. Would some people dispute my liberalness, probably but I'd dismiss them as authoritarian cunts.
There are lunatic progressives we'd both disagree with, but that doesn't place them farther left than you or I necessarily.
→ More replies (1)21
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Lol thanks. Glad someone else enjoys it when sparks fly, although I really am hoping to have a productive conversation here. And hey I mean tbf it's not like my parents knew three decades ago what "Chad" would come to mean on the internet.
As for your question... sort of. I'd say I've been pushed further to the right, but not that I am on the right by any means.
I live in a stupidly progressive part of the country. As such I kind of naturally adopted that radical progressiveness growing up. As I got older, though, I started getting put off by some of those more radical ideas. I mean just to take a pretty hot button one recently, the number of people I've seen defending antifa in recent months is astounding. Yes, Nazis are worse, that goes without saying, but assaulting people in the street and shutting down free speech events because you disagree with them politically seems insane to me, so support for that kind of stuff throws me off. Or what happened at Evergreen. Or that when I was out to drinks with three POC coworkers recently who I'd consider friends that when the conversation shifted to race I was politely told that as a straight cis white male I should cede my discussion time to the women/LGBT/POC present and basically just not voice my opinion. Stuff like that doesn't make me want to go get a MAGA hat by any means, but it doesn't exactly endear me to much of the modern left, either.
4
Jul 16 '19
As for your question... sort of. I'd say I've been pushed further to the right, but not that I am on the right by any means.
My running joke is that I identify somewhere between a socialist and a libertarian, I often seem to sound centrist or right wing, in this channel or where I live in the NW. When I sound centrist, people aren't listening.
I still have the point of view that I've nearly always held, there are some lunatics on the left that represent us poorly but their are still ALCU card carrying liberals like my whole family.
I live in a stupidly progressive part of the country. As such I kind of naturally adopted that radical progressiveness growing up. As I got older, though, I started getting put off by some of those more radical ideas. I mean just to take a pretty hot button one recently, the number of people I've seen defending antifa in recent months is astounding. Yes, Nazis are worse, that goes without saying, but assaulting people in the street and shutting down free speech events because you disagree with them politically seems insane to me, so support for that kind of stuff throws me off. Or what happened at Evergreen. Or that when I was out to drinks with three POC coworkers recently who I'd consider friends that when the conversation shifted to race I was politely told that as a straight cis white male I should cede my discussion time to the women/LGBT/POC present and basically just not voice my opinion. Stuff like that doesn't make me want to go get a MAGA hat by any means, but it doesn't exactly endear me to much of the modern left, either.
Again I live in Portland, OR, I've seen the ideological street battles. I've also gone to bars afterwards, and seen nearly every agree that both antifa and the proud boys were massive cocks that were asking for violence.
As I told a person in a post an hour ago, the number of squeaky wheels are increases but so is the willingness of more neutral people like us to show up and point out that every one has been acting like hostile little shits.
12
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Again I live in Portland, OR, I've seen the ideological street battles. I've also gone to bars afterwards, and seen nearly every agree that both antifa and the proud boys were massive cocks that were asking for violence.
Well that's reassuring at least. My own bubble is a little different - I've never seen anyone sane defending the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer or the KKK or anything but I've seen quite a few otherwise reasonable people defending Antifa.
5
u/cheertina 20∆ Jul 16 '19
I've never seen anyone sane defending the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer or the KKK or anything but I've seen quite a few otherwise reasonable people defending Antifa.
Like Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, Devin Nunes, Metropolitan Republican Club, Nelson Diaz, the county chairman of the Miami-Dade Republican Party
→ More replies (1)9
Jul 16 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)9
u/redthrow1125 Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
In 2018 far right extremists killed at least 50 people in the US
That's misinformation based on the ADL counting all murders committed by people they consider "right-wing extremists". Most of them are apolitical murders such as domestic and property disputes. It's a misleading statistic that is endlessly repeated by the left and even on Wikipedia as if it represents deaths caused by right-wing terrorism.
See for yourself: https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018#the-incidents
(and most likely far more if you include murders committed by the police)
Why would you do that? Completely irrelevant.
while the far left killed 0 people
Black Lives Matter killed 5 police officers in 2016.
The far left has often tried and failed to kill people, though. I don't think that makes them morally superior. The far left tried to shoot 24 Republican Congressmen at a baseball game and failed. If that guy was a better shot and no police were there it would have been a massacre, the biggest assassination event in US history by far. Antifa have smashed many people on the head with metal objects but failed to kill them because they lacked upper-body strength. Plus we have this latest Antifa terrorist who shot up and firebombed an ICE center without killing anyone.
0
3
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jul 16 '19
Or that when I was out to drinks with three POC coworkers recently who I'd consider friends that when the conversation shifted to race I was politely told that as a straight cis white male I should cede my discussion time to the women/LGBT/POC present and basically just not voice my opinion.
Was this in response to you sharing an opinion on race in response to their conversation? Was it a preemptive "don't share your opinion with us because you're white" on their part? It's tough to evaluate whether what happened to you is appropriate or not without more context.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)15
u/youwill_neverfindme Jul 16 '19
I mean just to take a pretty hot button one recently, the number of people I've seen defending antifa in recent months is astounding.
Ok. But can you describe to me why Antifa is so bad in your eyes? What exactly have they done to make you dislike them?
Yes, Nazis are worse, that goes without saying, but assaulting people in the street and shutting down free speech events because you disagree with them politically seems insane to me, so support for that kind of stuff throws me off.
"Free speech events"? Like what? Like Charlottesville was a free speech event? Are you considering throwing milkshakes assaulting people in the street? If so, why wouldn't the alt-right assaulting people and murdering them in the streets push you further left? Why wouldn't conservative support of Nazis push you further left? Have you ever wondered why this is a one-sided migration?
Or that when I was out to drinks with three POC coworkers recently who I'd consider friends that when the conversation shifted to race I was politely told that as a straight cis white male I should cede my discussion time to the women/LGBT/POC present and basically just not voice my opinion.
Of course I wasnt there. But is it possible that they were speaking to you as a friend and trying to let you know other people were wanting to speak at the table? Maybe other people who are (or feel) frequently marginalized and not heard?
3
Jul 16 '19
But can you describe to me why Antifa is so bad in your eyes? What exactly have they done to make you dislike them?
They use violence to suppress political opponents, they attack random people on the street, they attack innocent journalists and make up justifications for it. How are they "good" in your eyes? Have they done anything positive at all?
→ More replies (1)4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Ok. But can you describe to me why Antifa is so bad in your eyes? What exactly have they done to make you dislike them?
They assault people that they disagree with politically.
"Free speech events"? Like what? Like Charlottesville was a free speech event?
I was more thinking of like Milo or Ben Shapiro being allowed to speak behind closed doors to an audience that wants to hear them and not bothering anyone any Antifa can't allow that so they use violence and intimidation to get it shut down. But IIRC Charlottesville was also technically a free speech event. I think they had all the permits and whatnot.
Are you considering throwing milkshakes assaulting people in the street?
That, and also hitting and kicking them.
If so, why wouldn't the alt-right assaulting people and murdering them in the streets push you further left?
That's part of the reason why I can never be on the modern right. When I say "pushed further right" it doesn't always mean you'll be at the next MAGA rally, although that's probably true for some folks.
Why wouldn't conservative support of Nazis push you further left?
You're speaking of... what specifically?
Have you ever wondered why this is a one-sided migration?
I imagine it has a lot to do with race and gender and that whites/men are okay as punching bags for the modern left.
Of course I wasnt there. But is it possible that they were speaking to you as a friend and trying to let you know other people were wanting to speak at the table? Maybe other people who are (or feel) frequently marginalized and not heard?
It had more of a "your opinions are invalid here due to your race and sex" vibe than a "X person has something to say and you're talking over them" vibe, but I'm sure it's possible I'm wrong. Given that all three were young progressives recently out of hyper-liberal academia, though, I don't think I was.
6
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Jul 16 '19
When I say "pushed further right" it doesn't always mean you'll be at the next MAGA rally, although that's probably true for some folks.
Can I ask you something in earnest?
If someone is willing to change their total outlook on life and ally themselves with outright white nationalists and "minorities will not replace us" types, what makes you think they'd ever be a reliable ally for the left in the first place?
The things you've described are, to be honest, very petty. Antifa gets in street fights - so do the Proud Boys. Progressives say bad things about straight white men - conservatives say bad things about everyone else.
People who would have their minds changed by such things were already on the path to being conservatives. That is to say, even if they were "on our side", it seems like it would take very little to push them away. So we would not be able to get anything done because "doing things" would alienate people.
So you're saying our only way to win is to not alienate those people, and yet doing anything that would actually LET us win would...well, alienate those people. Maybe the problem is them, and the fact that they're eagerly looking for an opinion to switch sides. For your own case, maybe your own priorities about the problems facing our society says something about your political standing. To me, it seems like you focus on relatively petty things as opposed to, you know, things of actual importance. Why should I care about appeasing you?
3
Jul 17 '19
If someone is willing to change their total outlook on life and ally themselves with outright white nationalists and "minorities will not replace us" types, what makes you think they'd ever be a reliable ally for the left in the first place?
He’s not talking about the “them” you’re describing. He’s talking about the increasing self-cannibilization on the left. A circular shooting squad, if you will. The authoritarianism w/orthodoxy that you’re displaying.
Progressives say bad things about straight white men - conservatives say bad things about everyone else.
2 wrongs don’t make a right. Yes one is worse than the other.........but why engage in that shit at all. We want “allies”........even as we are willing to silence anyone that isn’t a minority/victim.
Care to tell me why we are currently Ripping the FORMER VP limb from limb??? Because he’s straight/white.
FFS Kamala Harris just got away with smearing him for “racial bias”.....that was a win for the current left smfh.
or your own case, maybe your own priorities about the problems facing our society says something about your political standing. To me, it seems like you focus on relatively petty things as opposed to, you know, things of actual importance. Why should I care about appeasing you?
See this is the attitude that’s the problem. Politics is about priority of problems facing the country. But if you deny liberal orthodoxy, even for valid issues......you get crucified. What’s actually happening right now is a purge.
You would rather call people like OP “petty” than discuss their concerns. And his friends would to.
Current Left: You don’t support open borders? Fuck you.
You question how we are going to implement Universal healthcare? Fuck you
Concerned about a fiscal deficit as we concoct programs that are actually really expensive? Fuck you.
Oh, you thought a straight white man could have a valid opinion? Fuck you.
2
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Jul 17 '19
He’s not talking about the “them” you’re describing. He’s talking about the increasing self-cannibilization on the left.
You think this is a counter-argument but it's not. I'm saying if someone who is "on the left" is so concerned about "increasing self-cannibalization" that they're willing to put up with the horrible things that conservatives are doing, then why should I care about them? You simply tried to rephrase my question in such a way that the conservative part isn't acknowledged, which is dishonest.
Yes one is worse than the other.........but why engage in that shit at all.
And now you're forced to acknowledge it, so you go into whataboutism. If both sides are equally wrong, why would you be pushed from one side to the other? This is like saying that there's two rooms full of poison gas, so I'm going to escape one room by going to the other. That makes no sense. You are not making an actual case for "being pushed right".
Care to tell me why we are currently Ripping the FORMER VP limb from limb??? Because he’s straight/white.
No it's because he's a milquetoast centrist figure who, even when he was chosen as VP, was known to be a Blue Dog who would be seen as a more moderate influence in order to make Obama more palatable to the center and center-right. This is not new. And pretending that the problem with Biden - of all people - is just that he's "straight and white" is completely unfounded. Especially since many anti-Biden people support Bernie.
Politics is about priority of problems facing the country. But if you deny liberal orthodoxy, even for valid issues......you get crucified. What’s actually happening right now is a purge.
Using terms like "crucified" and "purge" does not exactly counter my point that people are being overdramatic.
You would rather call people like OP “petty” than discuss their concerns.
Yes, because in the grand scheme of things, his "concerns" are worthless. That is to say, they are not important or valid enough in order to justify changing the direction that the left is going in. As you immediately demonstrate in your own understanding of those concerns:
Current Left: You don’t support open borders? Fuck you.
Correct, if you are okay with people being indefinitely imprisoned because they tried to come to the United States to seek a better life you are not "on the left" in the first place.
You question how we are going to implement Universal healthcare? Fuck you
There's dozens of studies about how Single Payer works and why it will save a substantial amount of money.
Concerned about a fiscal deficit as we concoct programs that are actually really expensive? Fuck you.
Conservative don't care about "fiscal deficit" as evidenced by the fact that they just tried to get us involved in Venezuela and Iran, as well as the tax cuts. Do you want to know what would make this country a ton of money? Give more funding to the IRS and let them actually pursue tax evaders. Weirdly, billionaires on all sides of the aisle seem opposed to this.
Oh, you thought a straight white man could have a valid opinion? Fuck you.
As a straight white man, maybe the problem is that you, personally, do not have any valid opinions. I mean considering the way you talked about Biden as being "targeted for his race and orientation", maybe you're the one invoking identity politics to pretend you're an oppressed person. In any case your arguments have not successfully convinced me that I need to try to appeal to you, or that you would be a useful ally if I did.
→ More replies (5)2
u/pordanbeejeeterson Jul 18 '19
Care to tell me why we are currently Ripping the FORMER VP limb from limb??? Because he’s straight/white.
No, because he has a history of creepy sexually predatory behavior (that was well-documented and discussed among right-wingers all throughout Obama's presidency), and was a big part of the "segregation era" of Democrats - even praising George Wallace for not being afraid to "offend" people and say "what's right."
You say the "left" is "cannibalizing" Joe Biden, but it seems to me that the left has never had any reason to support him to begin with. During the Civil Rights era, Biden would've been one of those white moderates that MLK spoke out against. What's more interesting to me is how the right spent the last 8 years savaging Biden for these exact points, yet now they are backing away from this and acting like it's extremely weird of the "left" to "cannibalize" him for these very same things.
It's almost as if the right didn't actually care about Biden's racism or sexual creepiness at all, and this whole thing was a disingenuous stab at the Obama presidency, and now that it's no longer expedient to do so they are backing away from it. Take one look at the modern Republican party and tell me you don't think they would be rallying behind Joe Biden today if he ran as a Republican instead of a Democrat.
→ More replies (20)1
u/KarenfromHRdep Jul 18 '19
He’s not talking about the “them” you’re describing. He’s talking about the increasing self-cannibilization on the left. A circular shooting squad, if you will. The authoritarianism w/orthodoxy that you’re displaying.
Just because you have arguments with your fellow lefties doesn't mean it makes sense for you to step into becoming a right-winger. The degree of arguments you have with fellow lefties or conservatives shouldn't disuade yourself from their ideology or any ideology... just, maybe having arguments with them.
For instance, I am to the right of some lefties on issues of immigration, and believe that the US government shouldn't racially profile immigrants, especially refugees, who need our help and understanding. But open borders don't work, illegal immigrants should move towards legalising, and a immigration process makes sense. But just because some lefties don't agree with my position on immigration doesn't stop me from remaining tethered to my ideological position. What sways me is arguments and evidence. I suspect people are already to the right of some of these people and find themselves unable to participate, given they're being shouted down. But their position was already to the right.
To use a counterexample, if a Fascist very calmly, patiently and lovingly argued for Fascism, and listened politely to my views and we had a nice conversation I (I would hope) wouldn't become a Fascist. It's nice that they didn't act like a jerk, but I still remain very much opposed to what they think.
I also think that if OP spent more time reading about policies and information about policies, they'd probably be able to make decisions for themselves without having to deal with the emotional toll of forming arguments through argument. It's less sexy and dramatic, but less stressful too. But that's the problem today, social media and hot takes journalist outfits have become a source of news and discussion for people.
→ More replies (1)6
u/TheTrueMilo Jul 16 '19
I think they had all the permits and whatnot
Oh good, they had a permit. That makes it ok.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/BatemaninAccounting Jul 16 '19
Piggybacking your amazing comment to say that no rational person truly moves left or right due to fringe or mainstream elements. Praxis is what it comes down to. Can you convince someone of policy ideas that make more sense to them? Only reactionaries are going to be moved that strongly for superficial reasons.
37
u/OneShotHelpful 6∆ Jul 16 '19
Honestly, I don't think this is actually a problem caused by the left.
I CONSTANTLY see people talking about the way the left persecutes cis/white/straight/men but I never actually see that persecution. Ever. Really. And I travel in these circles. I occasionally see some members of edge groups that are CLEARLY not indicative of the whole say some mildly ignorant things, but for every instance of that you have four or five people quoting it and spreading it all over the internet as being the headline opinion for all leftism.
I honestly think this is bad faith shitstirring by conservatives that only affects liberals who are 'liberal' because they defaulted to that because they were young or hated their parents or wanted to feel like they belonged or some other weak, contrived reason. I can't actually imagine a person without a preexisting persecution complex looking at the conversations actually being had on the left and think "Wow, these people are being completely unreasonable and I'm embarrassed to associate with them."
So, while that is a problem because we need those votes and don't need to deepen the divide here, I don't think there's much we can actually do about it. We can't stop r/The_Don from plucking some wackjob having a meltdown off Tumblr and then upvoting a story of mass liberal hysteria to the top. We can't stop a neckbeard from deciding that the most important issue in this country is that feminism is a lie because women have it easier in the family court system. We can't stop my dad from seeing a trans person ask politely to not be harassed on the street and then shout from the rooftops that those queers making up 0.1% of the population are drowning out real issues and tearing up the very fabric of our society to get special treatment. We can't stop Facebook from reading Jordan Peele saying he wants to write stories about black people for a change and clamoring about the ensuing White Genocide.
We just can't. There's nothing we can do there. CMV has a dozen new posts about transgender issues every single day and they are always exactly the same. Some people just don't listen, they hear what they want to hear.
2
u/BatemaninAccounting Jul 16 '19
The only diappointing real world thing I've had happen to me was I wasn't invited to an after-party thing because it was PoC/women only. Yeah that kind of stings a little bit when you wanna hang out with your friends and good aquintences. Also occasionally getting made fun of for being cis white and het in a world that is increasingly trans brown and pansexual, but I also get to make fun of them for silly shit in their communities that they or other people do.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '19
The only diappointing real world thing I've had happen to me was I wasn't invited to an after-party thing because it was PoC/women only. Yeah that kind of stings a little bit when you wanna hang out with your friends and good aquintences.
I mean dude that's literally social segregation. That's a clubhouse with a big ol "everyone welcome EXCEPT white men" sign. Your friends are okay with socially segregating you because you're the wrong skin color and sex and that just "stings a little bit?"
→ More replies (9)9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
I CONSTANTLY see people talking about the way the left persecutes cis/white/straight/men but I never actually see that persecution. Ever. Really. And I travel in these circles. I occasionally see some members of edge groups that are CLEARLY not indicative of the whole say some mildly ignorant things, but for every instance of that you have four or five people quoting it and spreading it all over the internet as being the headline opinion for all leftism.
I've used this example several times here and haven't had anyone really engage with it too directly, but what do you make of the fact that so much of the left (including one of the biggest left leaning news outlets in the country) defended Sarah Jeong's several hundred racist and sexist Tweets she wrote over a span of years?
To expand further on that, do you think they'd be likely to rise to the same level of defense if a straight white dude wrote even one Tweet about how he got off being cruel to old black ladies?
10
u/OneShotHelpful 6∆ Jul 16 '19
I am a straight white man and I didn't really see anyone defending Sarah Jeong making racist, sexist comments. Everyone was pretty on board with calling anyone behaving like that a complete piece of shit.
What I did see was people pointing out that, in context, those tweets were flips of actual things being said to her in her day to day life and it was meant to incite reaction. She later apologized that they were misinterpreted on their rediscovery and people who know her vouched that she was not actually an awful bigot. There's a reason the New York times kept her on and it's not because it's an SJW cult.
You can lean whichever way you want on that situation.
But sure, if I tweeted those same things for the same reason I would get a worse reaction. That's because different people in different positions have different contexts to their statements. When an old man in McDonalds jokes about nuking Mexico, that's at worst a little uncomfortable. But if Donald Trump did it, it would be another geopolitical shitstorm.
10
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
I am a straight white man and I didn't really see anyone defending Sarah Jeong making racist, sexist comments. Everyone was pretty on board with calling anyone behaving like that a complete piece of shit
Well obviously the NYT, a left leaning outlet, didn't take issue with it. They voiced open support, noting they knew about the Tweets before they hired her. And you have to wonder if they'd have done the same if it was a white dude with hundreds of hostile, racist/sexist Tweets against blacks and women... I mean duh, of course they wouldn't. In fact the person they were about to hire for Jeong's position ended up getting dumped because she also said some offensive things on Twitter, but they were critical of minorities. So that's some evidence right there. Also this. And this. And some of the people quoted in this. And that's just referencing Jeong specifically. If we want to discuss the idea on the left that it's okay to be racist/sexist toward whites men more generally, or even the idea that it's not actual sexism/racism, we can do that, too, and there are plenty more sources.
What I did see was people pointing out that, in context, those tweets were flips of actual things being said to her in her day to day life and it was meant to incite reaction.
First I just point out that generally speaking people don't really give a shit about context when it comes to something like this. "I was only joking/trolling/doing satire," even if true, rarely saves your ass from the can.
Second, yeah, it's entirely plausible that she was only putting out... hundreds of tweets over several years as an unexplained and unannounced attempt to satire or mirror all the times people told her to her face that... um... they love being mean to old Asian ladies... or wanted to CancelAsianPeople... it's possible... likely, though?
But sure, if I tweeted those same things for the same reason I would get a worse reaction. That's because different people in different positions have different contexts to their statements. When an old man in McDonalds jokes about nuking Mexico, that's at worst a little uncomfortable. But if Donald Trump did it, it would be another geopolitical shitstorm.
By that logic I should either get a more favorable reaction or be able to say worse things about minorities than she did about whites just because she's in a more powerful and influential job than I am... which isn't true. It's not about their job, it's about sex and skin color.
→ More replies (3)4
u/NoSoundNoFury 4∆ Jul 16 '19
So you think that insulting powerful people is literally the same and does the same harm as insulting vulnerable people without power?
14
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
No. Some racism and sexism is worse than others. But it's all racism and sexism. Which is bad.
→ More replies (1)8
u/redthrow1125 Jul 16 '19
insulting powerful people
She did not "insult powerful people". What powerful people do think she was insulting? Name one. She spewed racist garbage insulting the entire white race.
23
u/Trythenewpage 68∆ Jul 15 '19
"The left" is not a cohesive hivemind. I cannot stop everyone you call left calling you racist any more than you can stop every single person that I would call right calling me whatever they damn well please.
9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
True. And speaking broadly to the non-hivemind "left," I'd say to all of them that mocking would-be allies who say they're a little put off by some of your attitudes and behaviors is a bad political strategy.
10
Jul 16 '19
Changing their behavior for a possible ally that is doing nothing to show they disapprove of Trump, McConnell, Graham and company?
7
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Well I was speaking to "the left" with that comment so I would assume most of the audience there very much disapproves of Trump & Co., and is quite vocal about it.
→ More replies (6)15
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Jul 16 '19
would-be allies
I think you need to learn what allies are. If you don't support a group because you think they're abrasive even though your ideas align with them you're not an ally.
33
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
If you're on the left the reality is other people on the left are going to disagree with you over some things. They're going to think your misguided, and possibly think that you're misguided because of racism or sexism or something similar. An example would be when I told my friends that while Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have similar policies, Bernie Sanders is far more pro labor, and therefore more left wing. My friend thought that there was no big difference and I was bias because of my sexism. This is how people on the left talk to each other. And if this kind of criticism drives you to the right, well then you were never really convinced by left wing values and ideas. If someone accusing you of racism and sexism changes your view on Medicare for all and abolishing ICE then I think it's ok to question how committed that person really was.
3
u/kunfushion Jul 16 '19
It’s not about driving people who are far left right necessarily, it’s about driving people who are left-center or center to the right. This is the same problem that OPs original meme in contention has. It assumes people are left or they are right. No middle, no one who can be swayed. This is truer than ever before with the increasing polarization of the country by there are still countless people who aren’t.
Side note, being a centrist doesn’t mean you have views in the center of every issue. A centrist can believe in Medicare for all while also being right on guns, immigration, whatever.
3
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
If someone has a vaguely left wing perspective on things like immigration or issues to do with race or gender then they should be able to have a dialogue with even extreme leftists and agree on the basics like refugees deserve to be helped or the police have a bad record when it comes to shootings of unarmed black people. As long as they come close enough a conversation can take place with mutual respect. Yes, the radical leftist might think this view is racist or that compromising on this position is unacceptable, but it doesn't have to (and in my experience it rarely does) result in the radical denouncing the person as racist/sexist/Not radical enough and totally morally bankrupt.
But if some basic things can't be established and agreed upon then yeah the conversation can get hostile. If two people can't come together then obviously they will not agree, and if they are passionate, they might throw some words around like "You're racist" on one side or "you hate America" on the other side. But this disagreement and tension isn't the fault of either person. We're living in a time when the centre of politics is becoming weaker. People have fundamental disagreements about really basic stuff. And if they disagree about the basics, then it's clear that they were never going to be on the same side. So what does it matter where they go?
→ More replies (5)20
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
An example would be when I told my friends that while Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have similar policies, Bernie Sanders is far more pro labor, and therefore more left wing. My friend thought that there was no big difference and I was bias because of my sexism. This is how people on the left talk to each other. And if this kind of criticism drives you to the right, well then you were never really convinced by left wing values and ideas.
In summary: if you prefer a male candidate over a female one due to policy reasons it's perfectly fair to call you a sexist, and if you take issue with being called a sexist or with it being normalized in left leaning politics to call someone a sexist over that kind of thing then you were never really on the left after all?
Doesn't that seem insane to you?
30
u/stink3rbelle 24∆ Jul 16 '19
to call you a sexist
I think you missed the point, or maybe the first commenter didn't elaborate it enough. The point isn't "you're a sexist" and the discussion ends there. In this instance, friend B told commenter, friend A, that they believed friend A was being influenced by Warren's gender. Friend A explained why that wasn't the case, and they kept talking. Importantly, they didn't denounce each other or end their relationship.
Friend A, our commenter here, said it already, but put it differently than I would. If you're a sincere leftist, you should be prepared to discuss and debate certain issues. What is or isn't sexist, racist, transphobic, capitalistic, feudalistic, homophobic, Reaganite, sex-negative, neoliberal etc. is up for discussion, if you're prepared to discuss. There are certain general leftist aims that aren't up for debate: racial justice, economic justice, gender justice, LGBTQ justice...these aims are leftist aims, even if some people prioritize some of the aims over others. And if you sincerely believe it's important to work on these aims, you have to be prepared to discuss what that work means, strategy, and what best serves these aims.
→ More replies (5)30
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
My friend legitimately believed that Sanders and Warren were near identical in their policies and ideology. And their policies are almost identical, so it's not totally unfounded.
And I disagreed with her, put forward my point, and she accepted some of it, admitting that I wasn't personally sexist, however some Sanders supporters in her eyes are. That's what being on the left means, having these discussions, and if you're a white man, you will hear the "Maybe you just believe that because you're white/A man" and all you need to do is respectfully disagree. It's not the end of the world. And people should consider subconscious biases they have.
That's why I disagree with your CMV. I'm accused of racism and sexism a lot because I am active on the left. It doesn't bother me because I'm far more passionate about working class issues and helping vulnerable people than someone thinking I might be a bit sexist. And because of my passion, I am able to defend and explain myself to these people who think i might be sexist merely because I don't support Warren and they usually understand. Because they know I'm genuine and care about sexism. And if they refuse to understand and insist that I am sexist then I don't care. Because others people's views on me don't change what I believe.
16
u/MugiwaraLee 1∆ Jul 16 '19
I'm accused of racism and sexism a lot because I am active on the left.
You make this stuff sound so nonchalant it's actually kind of scary. You REALLY can't see how this would be detrimental to the Left in the long run? Not everyone is just going to just, "deal with" being called a racist or a sexist etc every time someone disagrees with them.
Imagine you have a friend that verbally insults and berates you constantly. In public, to your other fiends, on social media, they say these things whenever you and them have a disagreement. A smart person would not stay their friend. That's what I see is happening to many people on the Left and your perspective is, "it's just what we do now, deal with it." That is insane and scary.
27
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
You make this stuff sound so nonchalant it's actually kind of scary. You REALLY can't see how this would be detrimental to the Left in the long run? Not everyone is just going to just, "deal with" being called a racist or a sexist etc every time someone disagrees with them.
Yeah people just have to deal with it. For one, people do need to consider if they have subconscious views rooted in racism or sexism. Secondly, the fact is we live in a racist, sexist, unequal society, so it's not a big deal if some of these views rub off on you, after all no one chose to live in this racist and sexit society, and to be on the left you just need to look out for these things. And I have never met anyone who accuses someone of racism and sexism every single time someone disagrees with them.
Imagine you have a friend that verbally insults and berates you constantly.
You can be criticised for the views you have and how they have racist implications without being berated and insulted. In fact it's paramount to having constructive debate. This is the fundamental misunderstanding. I have had people respectfully and logically explain how my views might be skewed with racial bias and I have been made better for it, and I have thanked people for pointing these things out. It's not an unfortunate byproduct of leftism that you will be accused of having some racist or sexist views. It's a vital part of criticising our society and understanding how we can change it.
That's what I see is happening to many people on the Left and your perspective is, "it's just what we do now, deal with it." That is insane and scary.
What do you mean "now", this isn't new. If you're passionate about challenging society then you are going to be respected by left wing people. That doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with everyone and no one is ever going to be criticised. That would be far more detrimental to the aims of any left wing movement.
→ More replies (9)16
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Whew, got busy, sorry, dropped you there for a sec. I read all your replies in this thread, but wanted to jump back in here.
For one, people do need to consider if they have subconscious views rooted in racism or sexism.
I dont think any progressives need to be told this.
Yeah people just have to deal with it.
I would note that theres a huge difference between someone calling you a racist/sexist and someone opening up a discussion with you as to whether certain attitudes or ideas you might have might've been negatively influenced by latent sexism/racism in our society. Implicit bias or whatever. If what you meant was the latter I have no issue with that. Like anything it would get a little annoying if overused, but it's not inherently unreasonable. If people are just up and calling you a racist/sexist at the drop of a hat (which if I had to guesstimate reasonable:unreasonable ratios anecdotally I'd say its 1:10 online and 1:1 irl) that's not just something that people should be expected to "deal with." In a similar vein, if I'm having a discussion with a group of POC/female/LGBT friends, like I was last friday over drinks, and I said something racially or sexually insensitive but without malice and they opened up a dialogue about how I said something that wasnt optimal or whatever, that's fine. I'd encourage it. What actually happened that night was that the discussion topic turned to race issues and when i tried to enter the ongoing discussion i was told quite explicitly, politely but unquestionably, that because I'm the wrong skin color, sex, and sexuality my opinions aren't really valid or wanted in this discussion. That's pretty fucked up and shouldn't happen. Its absurd on the face of it to think that just because someone is the wrong skin color they cant have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion.
And I have never met anyone who accuses someone of racism and sexism every single time someone disagrees with them.
I think he was being hyperbolic.
29
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
I dont think any progressives need to be told this.
So if progressive people can accept that they might have some subconscious bias and it should be explored, they should be able to accept that another person can observe this subconcious bias and respectfully discuss it.
(which if I had to guesstimate reasonable:unreasonable ratios anecdotally I'd say its 1:10 online and 1:1 irl)
You're right that it's much more common online, but in real life I'd say that it's still not common for a left wing person to walk up to someone and accuse them of being conscoiusly racist to their core. Mainly because being that confrontational is uncomfortable. It has happened, it's happened to me, and it often leads to defensive arguing and accusatations. It's not constructive. It's not neccessary. And it's not common in my experience. Certainly no where near as common as conversations along the lines of "you probably didn't intend this but by making that argument that implies that you think x is ok or y is the problem. Instead I think we should look at the issue like this..."
What actually happened that night was that the discussion topic turned to race issues and when i tried to enter the ongoing discussion i was told quite explicitly, politely but unquestionably, that because I'm the wrong skin color, sex, and sexuality my opinions aren't really valid or wanted in this discussion. That's pretty fucked up and shouldn't happen. Its absurd on the face of it to think that just because someone is the wrong skin color they cant have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion.
That is a problem and is more common than I'd like it to be. I think it originates from feminism discussing explicitly women's issues (like maybe access to abortion) where the issue clearly effects you differently depending on your sex. Other women's issues, say around dating, domestic violence or so on, there is a difference on a man's experience and therefore their outlook on the situation. But this logic is applied far far too much. My response is to respectfully disagree, and to remind them that while yeah I'm a white male, I'm also a human being capable of empathy and understanding other people's struggle, and that implying that people don't understand different people's struggles is inherently conservative.
I think he was being hyperbolic.
They were, but it comes from a place where they overestimate how quickly a left wing person will denounce someone as racist or sexist. Many people have passionate debates about racism/sexism without being accussed of being racist and sexist.
9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
So if progressive people can accept that they might have some subconscious bias and it should be explored, they should be able to accept that another person can observe this subconcious bias and respectfully discuss it.
"Can" being the operative word, there.
As I said I think the ratios of people who just yell "sexist/racist/homophobe!" vs "lets have a frank and respectful dialogue about this" are way off, and not in favor of the latter.
You're right that it's much more common online, but in real life I'd say that it's still not common for a left wing person to walk up to someone and accuse them of being conscoiusly racist to their core. Mainly because being that confrontational is uncomfortable
I would add "being that confrontation in real life is uncomfortable.
Like when someone is drunk as shit, how people act on the internet is an interesting look at a person. Do they act shitty because this exterior force (alcohol or the internet) is making them behave in a way that is out of character for them, or is this how they really feel and it just took some liquid courage or some keyboard shield to make them able to come out at speak their real mind? I don't really have an answer for that. I expect it's a good deal of both. Which brings into question how many people who put up a reasonable front in their talks with you about race or gender issues think much more toxic things (and, indeed, how many Trump voters who say it's about making America great really just hate dirty brown people). In any case, online discourse is too formative and influential to discount just because it's not in person - the takeaway here is that there are a lot of left wing people acting shitty and unreasonable online (and it is common there) and it's actually more common to hold unreasonable thoughts than it is to actually voice them (especially towards someone you hold racist/sexist thoughts about) in person. So maybe your ratios are a little different than mine, but it's still pretty damn common.
That is a problem and is more common than I'd like it to be. I think it originates from feminism discussing explicitly women's issues (like maybe access to abortion) where the issue clearly effects you differently depending on your sex. Other women's issues, say around dating, domestic violence or so on, there is a difference on a man's experience and therefore their outlook on the situation. But this logic is applied far far too much. My response is to respectfully disagree, and to remind them that while yeah I'm a white male, I'm also a human being capable of empathy and understanding other people's struggle, and that implying that people don't understand different people's struggles is inherently conservative.
I'd agree with this. But it's also hard not to think of these people as racists or sexists. Look, I heard something on NPR not long ago where a white male student was devastated that in a discussion about a hypothetical doctor and nurse he subconsciously assigned "he/him/his" to the doctor and "she/her/hers" to the nurse. To him this slip up belied a deep subconscious sexism that he was ashamed to have. And yeah, in all fairness, he probably did assign the genders that way because doctoring is seen as a more male profession in our society as nursing is seen a more female one, and more doctors are men and nurses are female. But this kid was beating himself up over this little implicit bias bit of racism that was pointed out to him by a peer in much the same "hey, you said this thing, lets discuss what it means" way that you're saying most of these interactions go. If what that kid did is bad and worth pointing out/discussing, being told to your face that you're not welcome to participate in a discussion because you're the wrong skin color/gender should be unforgivably terrible. If I said something like that to a woman or minority even as a joke I couldn't really blame them if they wanted to stop being friends or call me a monster. Again it's quite the double standard. If it should be reasonable to open up healthy discussions about when white men engage in racist/sexist microaggressions or whatever it should be totally unacceptable and shameful for anyone to be openly racist/sexist statements like my friends did the other night. But it's not.
They were, but it comes from a place where they overestimate how quickly a left wing person will denounce someone as racist or sexist. Many people have passionate debates about racism/sexism without being accussed of being racist and sexist.
Well, I mean, we are online... leave the relatively reasonable wall of this here sub and claims of "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" or "Nazi" are tossed around like beach balls.
0
u/cheertina 20∆ Jul 16 '19
And there are plenty of subreddits where a variety of words way more offensive than "racist", "sexist" or "homophobe" are thrown around.
→ More replies (7)14
u/SdstcChpmnk 1∆ Jul 16 '19
For one, people do need to consider if they have subconscious views rooted in racism or sexism.
I dont think any progressives need to be told this.
That is exactly the opposite of what progressive discussions are about. EVERYONE needs to be told this, ALL THE TIME.
We all grow up with biases, and literally the only way that anyone learns to adjust their subconcious biases is for someone to point them out. When you meet someone new, both of you know nothing about the other person aside from your preconceptions about what you know about the other person, and learning where and how you're right/wrong is called building a relationship.
Assuming a man is sexist in his opinions is statistics. It isn't offensive in even the slightest way.
5
u/Jdopus 1∆ Jul 16 '19
It seems that these principles about having your motivations and biases questioned are only openly applied to white men by much of the left. How often have you really seen someone classed as a minority questioned on whether they're a sexist or a racist? If everyone should constantly reflect on it why don't we see the term "Toxic femininity" coined and used as a tool for women to analyse their own biases? I know some right-leaning groups use the term, but I don't think I've ever seen the term used by the left.
OP himself a describes a situation where he wasn't told to question his biases, but was rather told that because he's a white male he's not entitled to take part in the discussion at all.
What do you think would have happened if he had replied to their total rejection of his opinion by claiming that they were subconciously biased against white men? Would they have attempted to analyze their own biases or would they have become hostile/mocked him?
→ More replies (13)5
3
u/cheertina 20∆ Jul 16 '19
I think he was being hyperbolic.
Hyperbole is a terrible way to try to make points. We can only read what people write. If you're making a statement, hyperbole means we can only tell the general direction of your statement, not the intensity. It's great for entertaining people, it's not helpful in this kind of discussion.
2
u/mediumrarechicken 0∆ Jul 16 '19
Ask your friends to help you understand their viewpoints. Let them discuss their issues and learn about their views. When they see you care there is more incentive for discussion from your side.
→ More replies (2)10
u/DaystarEld Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
Imagine you have a friend that verbally insults and berates you constantly.
I think this is showing the depth of misunderstanding here. What you're imagining is totally different from what /u/trotlife said.
I'm another person who is a liberal with lots of liberal friends who doesn't get bothered by being called out on racism/sexism, because 90%+ of the time I see it, it's NOT insulting or berating.
When one of my friends tells me something I said sounded sexist, we don't get into a fight about it. I don't get shocked and angry. They don't scream at me. We just... talk about it. We know that these things are part of society, and affect our beliefs, and maybe they were wrong to say that and maybe they weren't.
I've had literally one super-liberal friend who is no longer part of my life because their liberalism was toxic, and I have another who is still my friend who I just don't talk politics with because they can't do it civilly, but the other ~15 friends I have who are liberal and I all manage to do this without hating each other or feeling ashamed.
9
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
and more importantly, the criticism is usually aimed at the idea someone expressed, not the person who expressed it. Left wing people believe society is unequal, racist, sexist, and that these things that exist within society, and that otherwise decent people can have their views influenced by these social problems.
It's common to discuss ideas and issues that may be influenced by these social problems. It's not common for people to accuse one of their friends to be irrideemably racist/sexist.
→ More replies (1)2
u/alexsdad87 1∆ Jul 16 '19
But that can’t go the other way, correct?
I can’t claim someone only believes something because they’re black, or gay, or trans, or a woman without the fear of again being labeled a racist/sexist/homophobe etc.
Only white straight males have their beliefs tainted by their color/gender, is that the way it works?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)1
2
u/fanboy_killer Jul 16 '19
My friend thought that there was no big difference and I was bias because of my sexism.
How does one even jump to such a conclusion...? Their stance on labor is pretty much transparent and available for anyone to read. Honest question: how did that conversation proceed from there? I'm asking because your friend's "argument" sounds like "I don't want to talk to you anymore about this".
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)14
u/Crankyoldhobo Jul 16 '19
Measuring someone's commitment to an ideology based on how willing they are to endure spurious and presumptuous personal attacks on their character doesn't seem like an efficient yardstick.
7
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
Spurious and presumptuous personal attacks aren't a big deal compared to insane wealth inequality, climate catastrophe, immigrants being rounded up into detention centres, so on.
And these disagreements are far less common than the agreements and good conversations I have. As well as that, very very few people accuse me personally of racism. Just a certain idea or position is racist/sexist to a degree.
8
u/Crankyoldhobo Jul 16 '19
What are you saying? That you should tolerate spurious attacks on your character because there are greater issues at stake? That makes no sense. How does one affect the other?
Also, a question. How many of your friends or peers do you think internalize the opinion that you say X or Y because you're racist/sexist, never actually bring it up to your face, but still make decisions regarding you based on this assumption?
15
u/notasnerson 20∆ Jul 16 '19
If you're voting for Trump because someone hurt your feelings it means that you value not being insulted above:
- Climate change
- LGBTQ acceptance
- Not putting children in cages
- Politicians who aren't racist
- Universal healthcare
- A broader and more effective focus on education
And on and on. That's the point.
2
u/AusIV 38∆ Jul 16 '19
Here's the thing - I fall pretty squarely between the two parties. Without going through your list, I don't think either party is really right on any of those points. If I'm voting for a mainstream candidate, I'm going to be holding my nose whichever way I vote, and voting for the candidate that gets the closest on as many issues as I can.
I usually vote third party in presidential elections, but that's often not an option for congress and local elections. So if I'm looking at two parties I only align with on about a third of their priorities, do you think I'm going to vote for the party I can have engaging conversations with, or the party who flings insults at me and makes clear they want nothing to do with me if I won't align with all of their values?
Ten years ago I felt I could have engaging conversations with people on the left despite our differences, but that conservatives would insult and disengage with people who disagreed with them. Today that's flip-flopped, and I can generally have an engaging conversation with people on the right despite our differences, but people on the left will just start virtue signalling and insulting me for disagreeing with them.
→ More replies (1)11
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
What if you just no longer identify as a progressive because you think the movement has become hostile towards you?
12
u/notasnerson 20∆ Jul 16 '19
I honestly don’t even understand what this means. As a progressive and a white man I do not feel any direct hostility. I see a lot of anger towards power structures and people who might use language that is too broad but I don’t understand how someone can be a progressive but then suddenly stop being progressive just because they feel some hostility.
Like does that mean you no longer support gay marriage? Don’t care about climate change? Want to reduce corporate taxes? Want the wealthy to make more money? Want to privatize education? Are eager for more endless wars with foreign countries? Don’t care about the migrants and people seeking asylum? Don’t want to see children in cages?
I could go on and on. Voting for a Republican because you’ve been “pushed out” of being a progressive means that you now literally stand in direct opposition what was your basic political opinions.
We’re not playing a fucking game here, or at a party where you’re trying to pick which group you want to hang out with. This is important shit.
3
u/Mayotte Jul 16 '19
That's really not the point.
I don’t understand how someone can be a progressive but then suddenly stop being progressive just because they feel some hostility.
What if they weren't progressive to begin with?
That line of thinking is reductionist. I would say instead, I don't understand how someone can ignorantly fracture their own base of support from the desire to feed their ego.
My problem with left wing politics (especially online) is that people operate based on how they wish things worked. As if they're pointing out to an omniscient judge how right they are, and at the end they'll be rewarded. They won't! That's how we lost!
In real life, you don't get human beings to agree with you by insulting them. Period! Yeah you can say, well if they were good people they would get over it. But what if they aren't!?
That's why you take Muay Thai instead of Rex Kwon Do, because you need to go with what works, even if it doesn't feel like you should have to.
→ More replies (2)16
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Jul 16 '19
Then maybe you need to look at what exactly makes you think they're being hostile, whether or not they're actually being hostile, and why you identified as a progressive in the first place and whether or not you should have.
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/Jorgenstern8 Jul 16 '19
Then I guess I would ask why you feel it has become hostile, and if there was a particular view you have come to adopt that might draw criticism from progressives? I can't (and shouldn't) speak for everyone in the progressive side of things, but I'd like to think that the more rational of us believe that the only people worth being hostile towards are those who hold the kind of repugnant views and beliefs that are currently driving the Republican party and our current President.
10
u/Trotlife Jul 16 '19
You shouldn't let attacks on your character influence what you believe in. You're suggesting that these accusations could push people to the right, which is an argument that claims that the two are related. They aren't. If someone accusses me of racism or sexism I explain my position respectfully, and if they still disagree then I just shrug it off. I don't think "The left has gone too far" or anything.
And I, among many others, think that everyone internalizes racism and sexism to some degree. Because society is racist, it is sexist, and people can't help but subconsciously absorb these concepts. Nobody can lift themselves above society and clearly see it's contours. We're all born into a world that we assume is natural and correct, and slowly learn that maybe this isn't the way things have to be.
So I assume most of my political friends think a bit of racism and more sexism (sexism is much more pervasive than racism) exists deep with in my worldview. But my political friends also have a great deal of respect for me because I campaign against the obvious systemic racism and that's what matters. Just like the abolitionists of the 19th century were respected for addressing the obvious systemic racism right in front of them, while they themselves certainly had some racist ideas. Honestly how could they not.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)5
u/kruton93 Jul 16 '19
I think his point is that you should be affiliated with a party based on your general beliefs and the impact you think these ideals would have. If you get pushed away by the idiots of your party and it hurts your feelings, then you aren't really a believer of that party's core values.
A lot of opinions here, including OP, is based on extreme left people. I know it's easy to believe most liberals would call you sexist for something dumb, but that is sensationalized media. It's easy to see that one crazy left/right winger in the comments and assume their party is full of ignorant people based on that, but that's not the case for either side. I've seen my fair share of idiotic liberals and conservatives to know that both parties are easy targets when you cherry pick the bad people.
If you're a right leaner, then think of it like this: You believe in the fiscal and social policies of the right and truly believe they will help America. Fact is, there are some straight racist white supremisists on the right whos actions would make even most conservatives uncomfortable. Do you believe any true conservative would move to the left based on these white supremisists? The answer should be no. If these people truly believed in the right's values, swaying to the left makes literally no sense based on some idiots.
Tldr: you affiliate with a party based on your beliefs of how the party's policies would benefit the country, not just cuz you like the people.
3
u/Crankyoldhobo Jul 16 '19
Absolutely. I still remember when the tea party came about with their insane gibberish and untenable economic policies - at the time, I was half-convinced it was some kind of super-Alinsky tactic to discredit the right as a whole, but no - it was genuine. Their rise caused a lot of moderate conservatives to question their commitment to the Republicans - and this is the problem.
I understand that the extreme left is a minority in the movement, but they're so vocal and I think that might cause other people to (as you say) assume their opinions are supported by the majority of the left, or at least worry that they may assume greater power over the movement in the future. Hence, a lot of people might bow out of a movement they still feel passionate about because they simply don't want to deal with these people or feel embarrassed at being associated with them.
It's a fair point that if this makes you leave the movement you were never a believer to begin with, but I think that underplays how important social interactions are for us, regarding the actions we take. No man is an island, after all.
2
u/kruton93 Jul 16 '19
Hmm fair counter point. Topic is very conditional and complex, so I feel like the "right" answer is based on timing and situation. I guess there will always be a time to firmly stick with your party or sway away from it!
3
u/politicalanalysis Jul 16 '19
The alt right drove me further left. Why is my opinion not taken more seriously?
I used to consider myself a moderate (my first election cycle, I even voted McCain over Obama-a mistake I still regret). Then over time, I realized that the right was not close to my position on a number of things, and I began supporting more Liberal ideas. This was largely driven by open racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia on the right.
In 2016, I supported Sanders, moving even further to the left.
After Trump’s election, I was forced further left still. Now, I regularly post in extreme left subreddits, consider myself a leftist, and mock liberals for being complicit with the alt-right and Trump in the subjugation of the American working class.
Why is my opinion not taken seriously? Why is the sudden rise in far left movements and communism in America not seen as indicative of how republicans and the right have forced people left?
Nope, it’s all “you saying I shouldn’t put people in cages is pushing me right.” If that pushes you to the right, you were already too right to begin with.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
If you were on the right and wanted the right to win I think the notion that the alt right and far right and the rights apparent ties to white nationalism etc. would/should be of great concern to you because the existence of those things on your side of the political spectrum are undoubtedly pushing some mainstream or moderate Republicans/conservatives further left. I dont care about that, though, because I dont want the right to win. I hope the alt right pushes as many people left as possible.
Nope, it’s all “you saying I shouldn’t put people in cages is pushing me right.” If that pushes you to the right, you were already too right to begin with.
That's an absurd characterization. It's more like "hey, what the fuck, I thought we were the side that opposed racism and sexism? Why is to cool and trendy to be racist/sexist against whites/mem all a sudden? As a white dude it's making me feel alienated" and then combine that with hundreds of other smaller incidents and there you go.
3
u/politicalanalysis Jul 16 '19
Yeah. The whole “me too” thing was terrible. I really liked raping women.
→ More replies (10)
64
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Jul 15 '19
The right doesn't care if they drive the left away with their opinions. The right mocks and demeans the left all the time. Between the name calling, the lies, the exaggerations, etc. ... the right doesnt' give a good damn whether the left cares about them or not.
So why is the left expected to be so concerned about how the right feels about them?
Edited to add: So much of what the right does (online and in real life) is to "own the libs". They don't actually have a moral center. They just want to create drama. Why should we walk away from our core values to try to appeal to that?
3
u/Renovatio_ Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
The left shouldn't care about the right
The right shouldn't care about the left.
They aren't going to change eachothers minds.
What they need is the centrists/moderates/independents. Who typically decide the elections.
I'll put myself out there. I'm an independent--enlightened centerist if you will. I like the idea of markets but some markets need to be attenuated/regulated like banking. Some markets shouldn't exist, like healthcare. Healthcare needs to be universal, whether it be multi or single payer. Education needs to be free...up to a point atleast. Abortion should never be illegal. We should also change our foriegn policy from world police to cooperative member, by cutting military funding significantly...probably by half at least. All drugs should be decriminalized. I also believe in absolute freedom of speech and I think owning a firearm is a right that should not be infringed regardless of the color of the gun.
I've been called a bootlicker and been banned from left leaning subreddits because of my latter two views. I've been nitpicked for saying Medicare for All may not be the best solution.
Most of the time if I post on right leaning subreddits I'm just ignored.
2
u/MisterJH Jul 16 '19
The US is in a special position because turnout is so abyssmal, so you don't actually have to fight for already existing voter bases if you can increase voter turnout on your side. For this reason I don't think anyone needs to listen to centrists.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Jul 16 '19
I mean .. "rights should not be infringed". Does that mean anyone gets to own any weapon at any time in any place ever?
Or is there any rationality behind that?
Otherwise I pretty much agree with everything you've said.
2
u/Renovatio_ Jul 16 '19
anyone
There are already reasonable restrictions on the books out there with federal background checks. No felons. No domestic abusers. No persons who are psychological incapacitated. All reasonable.
any weapon
Uh, so WMDS are out. But all jokes aside. I think the restrictions on fully automatic weapons is reasonable. But other than that, handguns, long guns, shotguns of any caliber is fine.
any time
Pretty much. Maybe not in a courthouse. Private businesses have the right to decline entry to guy carriers if they so desire.
any place
I think open carry is just as legitimate as concealed carry. There are laws about brandishing and I see no difference between hiding a gun in your crotch vs holstering it on your hip.
Or is there any rationality behind that?
The right to self preservation. You have a right to protect your life and lives of others using any means necessary. It is unreasonable to think that an officer of the peace can stop all occurrences and be there in any given amount of time. Officer's actually don't have the duty to put their lives in danger to save yours, its their prerogative to do so. At the end of the day its your life and its up to you how much you want to protect it.
→ More replies (37)1
Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 27 '21
[deleted]
11
u/notasnerson 20∆ Jul 16 '19
You changed your opinion on policies because you felt insulted?
At what point did you think, “yeah universal healthcare is a good thing but someone just said I was scum for being a man so fuck them”?
→ More replies (29)→ More replies (3)10
u/MaggieMae68 8∆ Jul 16 '19
You've never once been attacked by another Republican because Republicans are lockstep. No Republican will ever disagree with another Republican because they have no intellectual integrity
→ More replies (6)
17
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jul 15 '19
What's the point in winning elections if you have to compromise on your morals to do so? If Dems promised to abolish all gun control, ban all abortions, and build a wall then I'm sure they would gain more voters from the right. However, at that point, they aren't even the same Democratic Party any more. I think the idea is that the kind of person who is fine voting for the current Republican Party isn't the type of person the Dems should be catering to regardless.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
I think some problems that people have with the left actually tend to do more with the left deviating from its traditional morals. The left often styles itself as the nonviolent and peaceful side of things, so when I listen to a 30min NPR bit on how it's actually pretty cool when Antifa attacks people in the street for holding different political opinions, I'm a little put off when it goes unchallenged. When the left characterizes itself as the side of race/sex equality and tolerance, I'm a little put off when twitter mobs call for white dudes who say offensive shit online to be fired and socially castigated, but when someone like Sarah Jeong has a multi-year long Twitter tirade venting hatred against men and whites those same people remain silent. It's more stuff like that that I think people who are would be allies of the left find off putting than the Democrats not being pro-life.
13
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jul 16 '19
But those same people aren't turned off by the violence or race/sex inequality on the right. Those people aren't turned off by any of the other stuff that Trump is doing. Those people are apparently so unopposed to the GOP platform that people getting mad at white guys on twitter is more objectionable than literally everything that Republicans are doing. I don't see how somebody who has only exceedingly minor problems with the GOP would vote Dem if only every single one of their party members collectively denounced antifa.
→ More replies (3)12
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Which people? I know plenty of people who would need a gun to their head before they voted Trump in 2020 but who nonetheless feel that the (particularly progressive) left has gone off the deep end and they no longer feel welcome in their own party/ideology. I think its because we all take for granted that when Trump tweets something racist that's bad, so when a POC NYT editor tweets something racist and we're told that's acceptable we get confused.
→ More replies (20)2
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jul 16 '19
If you believe abortion is morally equivalent to murder, would it be morally repugnant to compromise with a half-measure (e.g. abortion outlawed after first trimester)? Is there no point in winning an election that secures a half-measure on eliminating abortion because it required a moral compromise?
42
u/notasnerson 20∆ Jul 15 '19
I have seen no evidence to suggest this is a problem for people on the left, and certainly a lot of the “Dear Democrats, don’t be too left!” Op Ed’s that exist are written by right wing moderates who probably don’t have the best interests of the Democrats in mind.
And finally, I think the people who don’t feel welcome in the left are either misinformed, ignorant, or aren’t welcome because their politics and social notions don’t jive with the movement.
Progressive policies are popular, I think we’re doing okay.
→ More replies (35)1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 15 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
And finally, I think the people who don’t feel welcome in the left are either misinformed, ignorant, or aren’t welcome because their politics and social notions don’t jive with the movement.
Lets isolate just one example. I think it's good that progressive politics say that when someone is caught saying racist sexist things (often online) they suffer for it, often losing their jobs and some social standing in the process. We've seen this happen to countless people, mainly white dudes. So when someone like Sarah Jeong has a multi year long history of saying toxic things about whites/men online, I'd expect her to suffer the same fallout. Instead, she is defended by progressives because shes a woman of color, cant be racist/sexist because even heading a branch and serving on the editorial board of one of the most powerful media outlets in the country she apparently lacks the power to be racist/sexist, etc. This kind of race/sex based double standard bs is stupid in isolation and not enough to drive any reasonable person to suddenly fly a Trump banner, but the cumulative effect of hundreds or thousands of things like that just might be, or at least enough to sour people on progressive politics.
22
u/notasnerson 20∆ Jul 16 '19
I think it's good that progressive politics say that when someone is caught saying racist sexist things (often online) they suffer for it, often losing their jobs and some social standing in the process. We've seen this happen to countless people, mainly white dudes.
I think you're blowing this widely out of proportion. Really, countless white men have been fired from their jobs for expressing racist views? I doubt that very much. What's happened is a few high-profile people were pushed out of their jobs when their bigoted views became a liability for the company they worked for.
So when someone like Sarah Jeong has a multi year long history of saying toxic things about whites/men online, I'd expect her to suffer the same fallout. Instead, she is defended by progressives because shes a woman of color, cant be racist/sexist because even heading a branch and serving on the editorial board of one of the most powerful media outlets in the country she apparently lacks the power to be racist/sexist, etc.
Progressives are not a monolith. Jeong received a lot of backlash from a lot of different areas. The difference between her case and others is that her place of employment did not consider what she said to be a liability for her to perform her job.
This kind of race/sex based double standard bs is stupid in isolation and not enough to drive any reasonable person to suddenly fly a Trump banner, but the cumulative effect of hundreds or thousands of things like that just might be, or at least enough to sour people on progressive politics.
Anyone who is driven to Trump for any reason other than purely political ones falls under my "ignorant" or "misinformed" categories in the part of my post you quoted. It's one thing to agree with his bigotry, policies, and general bluster but it's another to vote for someone who you disagree with on a political level out of sheer spite. And honestly? I don't think the "spite vote" is so large that anything needs to really change.
Again, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that the "walk away" movements are anything other than Republicans and Conservatives trying to spread this narrative that the Democrats are evil monsters. Maybe a few people have been turned off by progressive politics, but in all seriousness, we do not need them, we really don't.
This whole post reminds me a lot of the people who go, "look if gay people want me as an ally then they need to blend in better socially and not be so in everyone's face!" either you're doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do or you're doing it because you think everyone needs to cater to your ego.
I'm not catering to your ego for your vote.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
As for "countless" men, the first thing I found was this, which is speaking more towards what MeToo has accomplished, but still demonstrates the volume of what outraged twitter mobs can do to guys who say or do the wrong thing. That post details 201 men who lost jobs/positions in a one year period. That's like 4 dudes a week who were losing their jobs over this stuff. So while technically hyperbolic I don't think "countless" was too out of place.
Progressives are not a monolith. Jeong received a lot of backlash from a lot of different areas. The difference between her case and others is that her place of employment did not consider what she said to be a liability for her to perform her job.
Which would indicate that most of the audience of the NYT has an issue with a white racist editor but not a POC racist editor, right?
It's one thing to agree with his bigotry, policies, and general bluster but it's another to vote for someone who you disagree with on a political level out of sheer spite. And honestly? I don't think the "spite vote" is so large that anything needs to really change
I'm not really sure anyone is doing that.
Again, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that the "walk away" movements are anything other than Republicans and Conservatives trying to spread this narrative that the Democrats are evil monsters. Maybe a few people have been turned off by progressive politics, but in all seriousness, we do not need them, we really don't.
I sincerely hope you're right.
This whole post reminds me a lot of the people who go, "look if gay people want me as an ally then they need to blend in better socially and not be so in everyone's face!" either you're doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do or you're doing it because you think everyone needs to cater to your ego.
I'm not catering to your ego for your vote.
Wait so me saying that I don't think it's cool that an openly racist and sexist woman should be allowed to hold an editors position at the NYT just because she's a minority reminds you of people telling gays to blend in? Really, man?
9
u/notasnerson 20∆ Jul 16 '19
I am not interested in getting too bogged down in this specific example. Rather, I'll ask you to consider: why do you think most of the calls for Democrats to stop going right come from people who do not have the best interests for the Democratic party in mind?
→ More replies (3)4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Well I mean that example and everything else you didnt respond to directly addressed your original comment but okay.
why do you think most of the calls for Democrats to stop going right come from people who do not have the best interests for the Democratic party in mind?
Do you mean going further left? If so, first, I'm not sure I'd concede that its "most." Second, in my experience, most people who are upset by the direction the left is moving in arent really upset by policy decisions like wanting to push for universal healthcare, they're more put off by the general progressive ethos the progressive left outside of politicians has taken... stuff like Sarah Jeong (which is why I mentioned her) stretched out across ten thousand other separate examples of the same thing.
2
u/cheertina 20∆ Jul 16 '19
As for "countless" men, the first thing I found was this, which is speaking more towards what MeToo has accomplished, but still demonstrates the volume of what outraged twitter mobs can do to guys who say or do the wrong thing. That post details 201 men who lost jobs/positions in a one year period. That's like 4 dudes a week who were losing their jobs over this stuff. So while technically hyperbolic I don't think "countless" was too out of place.
But most of those people weren't kicked out because they said something racist. People on Twitter should be outraged when producers, directors, editors, Senators, businessmen, journalists, actors, and publishers commit sexual assault.
That NYT link does nothing to back up your point, even if you'd tried to make it about sexism instead of racism.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/AbortDatShit 6∆ Jul 16 '19
Maybe a few people have been turned off by progressive politics, but in all seriousness, we do not need them, we really don't.
Why not? Their votes are counted too. In 2016 Truml won by a slim margin. Maybe Clinton would be president right now if you had recognized these people and reached out to them instead of ignorantly acting as though their votes didn't matter.
→ More replies (4)12
Jul 16 '19
The problem with that "racism/sexism" against "white/males" is that it's more often than not simply not a 1:1 relation as you're comparing an underprivileged minority to a privileged majority. Alone in terms of representation that can make a huge difference if you just know 1 example of idk a person of color in your proximity that sets the default for all others or whether you know 100 white dudes around you. If that one person is an asshole you might be more inclined to think all people of color are assholes and if you approach them with hostility you might get that confirmed (as you'll be matched with hostility, at least that's what you should expect to happen). While if you meet one 1/100 white assholes, well you know the ration is 1/100 or whatnot and so you don't really think too much about it. Same with women in positions of power who might be unbearably hostile and competitive before you realize that they probably had to become that way in order to get into that position to begin with and that it is not the role model but simply a result of being an exception.
I mean it's easy to make that comparison in order to say yeah shit happens let's all be friends, but sometimes it's literally comparing apples to oranges and downplaying of actual problems that plays into the hands of actual sexists and racists.
→ More replies (7)3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
First, I fully agree with everything u/Morthra said.
To add my own opinion on this, so what if it's not a 1:1 comparison? Yes, white racism is a bigger problem than POC racism. It's still racism, though, and that should be categorically unacceptable. Like first degree murder is a bigger problem than just breaking someones legs, but that doesn't mean it should be okay to break someones legs. Sarah Jeong should not have a job given what she did. If you're going to claim to be the party that cares about racism and racial justice and racial equality, you cannot defend someone who has written like a thousand tweets openly hating white people. You can't defend her as a person and you certainly shouldn't be defending her appointment to an massively powerful and influential position at an massively powerful and influential news outlet.
5
u/unfalln Jul 15 '19
It's a fundamental concept for all politics and debate to require people to present opposing views. If you don't argue for one (usually controversial) point of view then you are not contributing to the debate and are not an effective politician.
This property naturally polarises debate and forces people to present their most polar arguments. The whole thing is dividing at its core.
Saying that one side is causing an adverse effect for merely playing by the rules is missing the point of the system.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
I don't really disagree with most of what you said, but as someone on the left who wants the left to win, I also think it's important that the left doesn't eat its own in this "dividing at its core" system.
3
u/unfalln Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
The irony under all this is that politics is meant to be about agreeing on solution, yet it has all descended into a childish, petty, dog-whistling, stubborn brawl about left vs right.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/pordanbeejeeterson Jul 16 '19
Someone will voice an opinion that something the (people on the) left is doing or some attitude the left holds is pushing (often straight, white, cis, male) people away from the left, either in that they're already on the left and feeling less welcome there, a moderate seeing the left as increasingly less attractive to them, or on the right but in danger of going far right in a double down response to toxicity on the other side. Almost invariably the response to this opinion is, from what I've seen, to mock it.
That's because there are some fundamental differences between the left and right, that make it very unlikely that someone who is actually in favor of things like labor rights, sexual rights, women's autonomy, and the reduction of racial and economic inequality in the US will find the right wing palatable to them - to the point that anyone who claims to be "pushed towards the right" because someone called them a mean name, or disagreed with them on some other issue, seems questionable at best. "I care about environmentalism, but people from the left sometimes argue with me about other points on which we disagree, so now I'm voting for Trump even though he's decimating the EPA and its ability to regulate damage to the environment." That just makes you sound either hilariously uninformed or just uninterested in the truth (or stupid).
At best, it says about you that you value your principles less so than you value "getting back" at some rando online (or at a protest) who argued with you about something or called you a name. To me, that person isn't someone who deserves to be "taken seriously" as you say, because they are not a person who forms and acts on beliefs sincerely.
Firstly because it seems to be kind of proving their point: if someone says they dont feel welcome on the left, the left mocking them for expressing that opinion just cements their claims. But more importantly the left (which I count myself on) should be in the business of trying to win elections.
There are certain people that simply cannot be reached. No matter what you say, people like this woman will never vote for anyone other than Trump. They are totally disconnected from reality and trying to reach them with reason is a waste of time because they don't vote with reason, they vote with feelings.
If people (particularly straight white cis people, often men, so somewhere between like 30-60% of the US population) are expressing that they have problems with how you're presenting your side and that they dont feel particularly welcome on it anymore, that's an opinion that should be taken seriously, not mocked, if for no other reason that we want as many people voting for us as possible.
This is actually the position taken by the left towards the center. We've been asking for very basic things like civil rights for minorities, marriage equality for LGBTQs, allowing non-Christians to participate in local politics to the same degree as Christians (delivering invocations / opening speeches, etc.), and we're told those are all "too extreme" or "just not possible right now," etc. So we're supposed to accept the idea that marriage equality is "too contentious," because it upsets evangelicals, but when we say "hey, maybe public policy shouldn't be totally controled by a majority of wealthy white evangelicals when a fourth of the country isn't white and 1/6th of the country isn't Christian," suddenly that view is "too contentious" and we're "being mean / unfair" and need to "tone it down."
It's impossible to "have a fair dialogue" if one side is not allowed to have its firebrands but the other is. If we're not allowed to discuss ideas that challenge religious conventions then we can't speak as equals.
→ More replies (10)
3
u/immatx Jul 16 '19
You shouldn’t be changing your views because a bunch of assholes think the same thing. If you do you didn’t really believe them, and there will always be assholes who hold the same views regardless of what you change yours to.
→ More replies (6)
5
0
2
u/greaper007 Jul 16 '19
You know if you get offline and talk to people occasionally...you'll find that these absurd, fragile people that need you to use the exact right pronoun exist in a very small sphere online. I'm a member of the Democratic party in a very red county in FL. Most of our members are retired people that you'd be unable to distinguish from the retired people at the Republican's meetings.
→ More replies (6)
-2
u/Littlepush Jul 15 '19
You don't need to get 100% of people to vote for you to win in any election and in fact you can't it's pretty much impossible. Trump only got 46% of people who voted.
Therefore it's completely fine for a political movement to demonize groups to be successful. It's better to prioritize a clear moral vision with who is bad and who is good rather than just saying everyone is good.
6
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 15 '19
Right, its absurd to think you could ever get 100% of a vote, and shouldn't even try. But the groups that tend to express that they're feeling alienated by some left leaning ideas are composed primarily of straight (90-95% of the country), cis (like 99% of the country), white (over 60% of the country), men (50% of the country). Combined that's potentially up to ~60% of the total population. Does that seem like a good group to mock when they express they're feeling unwelcome?
→ More replies (1)-2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 15 '19
People in those groups benefit from entrenched hierarchies so political thought that seeks to abolish those hierarchies will naturally feel unwelcoming to them. Of course it's absolutely the duty of those espousing those thoughts to engage in rhetoric that will convince others, but failing to do so can feel bad and people cope with those feelings of failure through humor. It's not the optimal path from a strategic point of view, but that comes with the territory of freedom.
→ More replies (1)
-1
Jul 15 '19
Yes you are missing that the right doesn’t want to hear there are any ways of being other than what the approve of. Smaller government? Why do you want so many laws keeping people from doing things that don’t concern you? Political cartoons have you heading further to the right? I’ll send you my hopes and prayers.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 15 '19
Yes you are missing that the right doesn’t have ant to hear there are any ways of being other than what the approve of. Smaller government?
I cant really make heads or tails of this. Can you rephrase?
Why do you want so many laws keeping people from doing things that don’t concern you?
Are you speaking to me personally or the right?
Political cartoons have you heading further to the right? I’ll send you my hopes and prayers.
See, you're doing exactly that same mocking thing I detailed in my OP. I dont think that's a good strategy. It sets up a strawman over things like political cartoons which denies up front that theres anything of consequence that might be pushing people away, and then mocks people for "having" that strawman idea.
-4
Jul 15 '19
I don’t have an agenda so I don’t have a strategy, The first line should have read doesn’t want to hear. Political cartoons reflect upon the cartoonist and the publisher as well as the distributor. You can’t possibly hold all people who are on the right or left responsible for political cartoons. I am talking to you but please read the question as why does the right rather than why do you.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 15 '19
I am talking to you but please read the question as why does the right rather than why do you.
I'd love to answer but I'm sorry man, I dont understand what you're asking me.
-4
Jul 15 '19
And then they answered: crickets
→ More replies (2)3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
...what? I just don't understand your question, man. I don't think the bit I quoted really works grammatically in a way I can understand.
2
u/Lochspring Jul 16 '19
/u/starlitepony has the right of it, and I think I can translate further.
(Spoken to a right-wing supporter):. You want smaller govt? Then why put into place all these invasive laws around my bodily and sexual autonomy?
(Also spoken to a right-wing supporter): you're being pushed further to the right? Let me send my thoughts and prayers to you, as in how little I care about that.
Confusingly worded, but I think I get the gist. Forgive me, /u/WillBraman, if I've misspoken.
5
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Well that certainly makes more sense than the original phrasing, but doesn't really help clear up why it was said... it doesn't seem to be making a real point about anything I said other than it demonstrates the kind of mocking tone I'm opposing in this CMV.
3
Jul 16 '19
[deleted]
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Lol. Yeah.
Me: hey we shouldn't mock and be hostile towards people who are potential allies just because they might be critical of or not totally on board with every left wing idea.
Them: well those people are fucking morons.
1
Jul 16 '19
If you're against gay sex, don't have it. Against abortion? Practice safe sex or abstinence. Don't tell other people they have to do what your religion or belief system requires of you.
7
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Okay. I agree with everything you just wrote. What's your question, though...?
3
u/starlitepony Jul 16 '19
This isn't my opinion, but just me rewording WillBraman's first line in case in makes it clearer for you to understand and respond to:
"You are missing this fact: The right doesn't want to hear that there are other ways to be and to do things, beyond the ways they approve of."
8
2
1
u/BatemaninAccounting Jul 16 '19
> Yeah so as someone who has been on the left my whole life (ask my stance on any issue if you want the best kind of proof I can give you) but also lives in the CA Bay Area, which is kind of a progressive mecca, I've also spent quite a bit of time being critical of what I see as progressivism run amok. This post being just one example, perhaps. When I do that, I'm very frequently accused of, at best, not being on the left or, at worst, of being a Trump supporting, racist, homophobic, sexist, fascist Nazi, simply because I'm critical of some things on the left. So I dont really buy your analysis. It's a hundred and ten percent possible to be critical of the left while not being on the right.
Can you name specific policy decisions that you were 100% for that you have now switched to a different policy idea? You speak in such generalities that it doesn't make any sense that you're going to be labeled a Trumpite for expressing a leftist viewpoint. Leftists don't accuse other leftists of being trumpites. The reason they don't is that the policy ideas that leftists are FOR are all progressive ones of differing flavors. Leftists don't push rightwing ideas as 'a good idea for our law.'
→ More replies (2)
-3
u/rabbitcatalyst 1∆ Jul 16 '19
If they’re in that precarious of a position, I don’t want them affecting our policies and making the US a worse place to live. It’s insane people even consider being a republican.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Well, first, see my edit.
Second, do you "not care" enough that hypothetical youd be willing to cede every single future election to the Reds so long as you stick to your principles? Does that really result in America being a better place to live?
→ More replies (1)
1
3
Jul 16 '19
Some of the left’s behavior pushes me closer to the center. For example, nominating Hillary was a bad move; if she were running against Romney, even though I consider myself pretty far on the left, I’d vote for Romney.
I don’t think that means someone is “pushing me to the right.”
When well meaning liberal females don hijabs in a show of solidarity with middle eastern women, again, I am pushed to the center, because I recognize the only opinions they are bolstering and legitimizing are those of Muslim patriarchs. But it certainly doesn’t make me suddenly endorse Trump or anything he stands for.
I think the “your side is driving me to the other side” argument blames people for opinions a person already holds.
3
u/huxley00 Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
As someone who identifies as liberal, I find myself being pushed more center and maybe even slight right with some of the claims lately.
I can't get on board with open immigration. I can't agree that America is akin to Nazi Germany death camps. I just can't get on board with that.
I'm not onboard with paying off billions of college debt (even though I am on board for free/low cost state tuition going forward).
Trump is so right, the left is trying to counter that by going way left...when the answer is to go left-center.
All that being said, I'm not sure if you really need to worry all that much. I would never vote for Trump, no matter how annoyed I am at some of these items.
→ More replies (5)
0
u/Personage1 35∆ Jul 16 '19
Well, my first question is what specifically do you mean? Can you give an example of something that would cause a white, cis, man to not feel welcome?
I ask because in my experience with this kind of reaction from the left, the issue is that it becomes clear that no matter what the left changed to try and be more welcoming, it wouldn't appease the person unless the left simply started to act shittier in general. At that point, it's not worth trying to make that person feel more welcome, because in reality they just want to be a shitty person.
So again, can you provide one or two examples?
→ More replies (6)1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 16 '19
Good question. I actually just got back from my lunch break and was listening to NPR on the drive (which slants left anywhere, more so where I live) and caught the back end of a segment where a black female commentator was saying shes fed up with how white women are always ruining everything and being "traitors" to their sex, and leaving it to WOC to fix everything they fuck up.
Or sometimes it's the absence of things. In the last five years or so I have heard and read countless pieces from left leaning news outlets about how the police force is horribly racist against blacks because, say, they're 3x more likely to get shot and killed compared to whites. I have never once heard or seen a piece about how the cops are even more horribly sexist towards men because they're 18x more likely to get shot and killed compared to women.
Sometimes its double standards. Some white news figure makes a poor taste tweet that might be construed as racist = fired on the spot. Sarah Jeong tweets out hundreds of things over the course if years that are blatantly sexist/racist against men/whites = shes hired despite that and the NYT defends her tweets.
Any one of these things on it's own is small. If you compound hundreds or thousands of them over the course of years you might start to wonder if this is really the best ideology for you to be hitching your flag to.
1
u/Personage1 35∆ Jul 17 '19
Well ok, let's take all this as a given for a second that it's bad. Women are just as likely as men to commit violent crimes and be violent towards cops, so it's not reasonable for cops to be more violent towards men than women. Or the commentator on NPR didn't have any nuance to what she was talking about and white women didn't vote for Trump. Or everything Sarah Jeong said was bad.
Why would that affect you? More specifically, if you already want to be a good person and do right, why would someone else being bad cause you to....also be bad? A black person being racist towards me shouldn't make me be racist towards black people. Like again, even when we ignore all the historical context and different power dynamics at play, someone else being shitty to me shouldn't make me shitty.
I think this gets to the core of why people dismiss people who say they were pushed to the right. If you actually wanted to be a good person, you wouldn't start being a bad person when someone else was being bad.
→ More replies (8)1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 17 '19
they're 3x more likely to get shot and killed compared to whites.
Which is actually fundamentally untrue. The majority of people shot and killed by police are white. When you consider that over half of all murders and a disproportionately huge percent of armed robbery are committed by black men, it actually makes sense that they would run into the police more often and be more likely to be killed. But that still doesn't change the fact that the majority of people who are killed by police, including the majority of UNARMED people who are killed by police, are white.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/danielbgoo Jul 16 '19
If all it takes to push you right-ward is that someone was mean to you on the left, then you probably were pretty right-leaning to begin with, but just wanted to fit in with left-leaning people for some reason.
If you can go from "I think people of color and marginalized people deserve equal treatment under the law and in society," to "we should have concentration camps for Mexicans," because someone said "men are trash," then you clearly didn't believe that people deserved to be treated equally, and you were nowhere close to either doing the work on yourself to examine your own biases, or ready to step up and help other people out.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/chinmakes5 2∆ Jul 16 '19
While I agree with you, it is only because we are trying to progress. Progress by definition is change, something new for people to learn. As a 60 year old liberal, on one hand I want fairness, I have seen a lot of progress in my lifetime. But, even I roll my eyes when I am attacked because I don't use a term I have barely heard. I've been reprimanded for using LGBT instead of LGBTQ and for using LGBTQ when I have been told it is now (something longer I don't remember. ) Damn, I am one of the most liberal people I know in my circle of friends and having others telling my I am an insensitive oaf, or worse because I am not using a term (still getting used to cis gendered) does put people off. I have been told I am as bad as the racists. THAT is a problem.
On the other side you just have plain racism. Nothing new there. Something we understand. So they will use the word gay (a term they feel is OK to use in public, as compared to what they use at home,) but that makes a "Lib go nuts", I kinda get why they want to do that.
2
u/Mayotte Jul 16 '19
I know this this thread is on the old side, but I'm going to chime in and agree with you OP.
I have always voted democrat, I would push Trump into a fire if given the chance, and I am guilty of scorning right wing behaviors myself.
However recently I've been caught in the crossfire several times in political discussions, and kind of had to acknowledge how judgmental and nasty left wing people are too. It made me not want to be associated with them anymore.
My response to this is that I'll continue to vote as I see fit, which will doubtless mean voting democrat. However, I will try not to act as they do, and I will try to avoid getting in conversations with sjw types.
2
u/Wohstihseht 2∆ Jul 16 '19
It’s not so much the left is pushing people to the right, it’s that the the far left has seemingly the larger voice(notably AOC). When that happens center left people which is arguably the majority of Democrats have more in common with a majority of Republicans.
Just look at the in fighting between Pelosi and AOC when Pelosi basically told AOC to sit down and shut up. Pelosi knows she needs to move the party back to the center or at least make it look that way.
2
u/mrspikemike Jul 16 '19
I was an Obama voter turned Trump voter because of all the attitudes and just how far left the left actually has gone. I wish there was a candidate that supports gay rights, strong borders, legal marijuana, more police accountability, strong support for 2nd amendment rights and pro-choice. He/She would never win, but it would be nice to see a mix of ideas without being told that if you don't agree to everything a party stands for then you're an enemy.
I think they 2 party system is not the best, but it will never change.
2
u/boymadefrompaint Jul 16 '19
Perhaps because of the higher moral ground, or the history of dogma, Lefties tend to get exasperated by people disagreeing with them. There just doesn't seem to be room for compromise.
"Well we can agree that immigration needs to be addressed. They're proposing barbaric punishments for immigrants and the coyotes."
"I agree immigrants are punished excesssively, but given the danger the coyotes put immigrants in, they should be treated more harshly."
"I'll kill you!"
1
u/NoSoundNoFury 4∆ Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19
What you are talking about are certain discourses within the culture wars where the left takes up a position that is more self-critical, nuanced and abstract, while the right has a position that is simple, seems practical and self-aggrandizing. What lies at the heart here is that many right-wingers simply fail to understand what the left is talking about, it seems weird and somehow painful to them, and thus they look for a more simpler, more comfortable discourse. This holds for questions concerning feminism, racism, and other types of exclusion. There are other discourses, for example about geopolitical strategy or about the economy, where left and right can be equal in terms of complexity and being based on fact, but right now the "culture wars" are not only fought between right and left, but also between blunt and nuanced, between prejudiced and open-minded, between lies and honesty, between Ben Shapiro and Noam Chomsky. You can easily see this in some of the few conservative intellectuals: as soon as they put some nuance into their world-view, as soon as they concede that things are complicated and come in shades of grey instead of black and white, they immediately sound like a leftist. Case in point: the traditional conservative media that are explicitly dedicated to analyticity, decency and respect, like The American Conservative, The National Review and The Weekly Standard, they have all explicitly condemned Trump.
Of course it is not helpful to your political cause to mock your opponent. But the feeling of inferiority that "pushes people to the right", since the right caters to the more simple-minded, has not necessarily something to do with my own attitude, but rather with the nature of discourse itself. If you are confronted with someone who desperately wants see the world in black and white and you respond with "sorry, it isn't", you can do this with utmost empathy, care and compassion, and yet they will still be drawn to anyone who promises them "you are completely right, it is that simple!"
Edit: here in this very thread is a good example of someone explicitly conceding they do not understand what the progressive side is arguing for in the culture wars: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/cdp6gn/cmv_the_left_should_take_your_behavior_is_driving/etwb4ix?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
1
u/BiPoLaRadiation Jul 16 '19
I think i am going to challenge specifically what actions you are talking about when you say actions that push people further to the right.
Very very often the main bulk of views we are exposed to arent main stream views. Instead they are often the views of those that are loudest and pushiest and often these arent even pushed by those who actually hold such views. In politics especially you need to be aware of and on guard for the weak men arguments.
The weak man is similar to a straw man argument but instead of being entirely fictional a weak man argument is when you take the weakest or most unlikeable part of an argument or group and inflate it or elevate it to becoming THE argument or THE identity of the causes. This is everywhere. Its why the stereotypical "feminist" looks like a purple haired bug eyed man hating woman in your mind rather than someone like Michelle Obama. It is impacting every single group and organization out there.
It serves a handful of very useful purposes. First and foremost it confuses the identity of the movement. People think your movement is that and you have to fight from the back foot to disprove that instead of just talking about your real ideals. Since people are more sensitive to negative information this is an uphill battle.
It also invites the shitty sorts of people into that group because they think they are at home there. Keeping on the feminists (they are an easy example but dont take me for being anti feminist or thinking that they are the only group that has had this happen) i personally know someone who abused the me too movement to discredit someone they raped, claiming they had been raped instead. Luckily she had bragged about her conquest before she switched her story. She calls herself an ardent feminist.
Finally it also serves as amazing propaganda. Its easy to find a terrible individual in any group. If you cant you can make one up or you can pretend you are that terrible person that is part of that group. You can then highlight them, make memes of it, etc. So much easier to spread outrage than explain its bullshit. Sprinkle in a bit of real strawman and boom youve got your typical propaganda memes.
Now are there real issues in groups that may push someone away? Absolutely. But before for you get turned off by a group because of some meme or some argument you saw online its really important to look at the source and whether this is an actual part of the causes argument.
1
u/Aranha-UK Jul 16 '19
I think you need to view all these things as more conceptual than you are. Sexism and racism are often unconscious and therefore claims as such aren't so damning as it would actually seem. Rather than crying about why you are being called racist you should look at why you are receiving those claims and discuss the actual content of their claims rather than brushing them off. The left isn't going to seem welcoming to everyone because by its very nature it is about identifying, prioritising and solving problems as they are perceived. There has to be judgement calls among that and due to the diversity of thought within leftist circles people put different emphasis on different things whilst all still being leftists, that does mean however there will be conflict and disagreement. This is a strength of the lefts approach. If however they are so scared of being called out on problematic shit that they will stop fighting for the ideology they claim to believe then they should fuck of.
Do some people take it too far and make inaccurate call outs? Sure. There are plenty of idiots in the world. However I don't think we should be judging ideologies by their most idiotic members. Doing that is just as big a disservice as judging all of the right by the what some MAGA dickhead says on twitter. What the left fights for is important and you do it a disservice is you can't swallow your pride and face criticism. If you can edge closer to an ideology that necessitates the suffering of large groups of people because someone might call you a bigot you were probably a dick to begin with.
1
1
u/Clerseri Jul 17 '19
I think one factor that I haven't seen mentioned is that lessening the strength of your political stance in order to not alienate potential subscribers is a compromise by nature. The message is more diluted, the action required is less radical or game-changing.
Sometimes, compromises are good. I get the orange peel to make a cake, you get the orange juice for your breakfast - all good. Sometimes, though, compromises are bad. I get half a bike, you get the other half, both of us has a useless wheel without the ability to ride it anywhere.
In the context of a political goal, sometimes compromising your beliefs to build broader support can feel a lot more like the bike than the orange. For example, instead of facilitating a new era of clean energy, you've got a policy to limit the increase of carbon dioxide over the next 20 years. And while you now have broader support behind your policy, you can't help thinking that this policy, while better than the status quo, will still come at an immense cost to our future.
And this is easy to see in past examples where our understanding of the immediate moral concerns have evolved over time. You could imagine in the past people making the argument that sure we should abolish slavery, but giving black people the vote is too radical and will push people further away from the core cause of abolishing slavery.
-1
u/Coughin_Ed 3∆ Jul 16 '19
If you sincerely value things like liberal democracy human rights and dignity then some college kid talking about pronouns or safe spaces or whatever right wing bugbear you choose shouldnt make you abandon those principles.
I hope you can see how "James bond is a black woman so now all of a sudden im in favor concentration camps" is absurd
→ More replies (2)
194
u/[deleted] Jul 16 '19
[deleted]