I want to draw attention to the elephant in the room.
Leading up to the election, and perhaps even more prominently now, we’ve been seeing droves of people on the internet displaying a series of traits in common.
- Claiming to be leftists
- Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
- Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
- Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
- Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
When you look at an aerial view of these behaviors in conjunction with one another, what they’re accomplishing is pretty plain to see, in my opinion. It’s a way of utilizing the moral scrupulousness of the left to cut our teeth out politically. We get so caught up in giving these arguments the benefit of the doubt and of making sure people who claim to be leftists have a platform that we’re missing ideological parasites in our midst.
This is not a good-faith discourse. This is not friendly disagreement. This is, largely, not even internal disagreement. It is infiltration, and it’s extremely effective.
Before attacking this argument as lacking proof, just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?
By refusing to ever question those who do nothing with their time in our spaces but try to drive a wedge between us, to take away our power and make us feel helpless and hopeless, we’re giving them exactly that vector. I am telling you, they are using it.
We need to stop letting them. We need to see it for what it is, get the word out, and remember, as the political left, how to use the tools that we have to change society. It starts with us between one another. It starts with what we do in the spaces that we inhabit. They know this, and it’s why they’re targeting us here.
Stop being an easy target. Stop feeding the cuckoo.
I feel like you have grasped the nature of my argument, and parts of yours that I do and do not agree with. We got there, I guess.
You seem very hung up on whether to call me agreeing with you in part, and not with another part, as full disagreement or full agreement, and you seem to have very confused for quite a while now that I am not falling in either of those categories. You’ve arrived at “full disagreement” now, as if daring me to challenge you on it. I am fine with that definition if you want to call it that.
In the future I would recommend that you pursue this course immediately instead of after a day of yelling: Objectively summarizing the point of view of the person you’re talking with, and comparing it to your own and seeing where they differ and why, instead of just spending the whole time yelling your own side and then telling the other person what it is that “liberals” believe and getting confused. It will be outside your comfort zone but it is communication. I would actually recommend that you go forward from that point of comparison, and into analyzing the differences and reasons for their differing point of view and considering it even though (by definition) you will think it is wrong, and critiquing your own points of view based on the differences and the reasons for them and any counterarguments they may make. You will find your internet interactions more productive, I think.
In any case have a good one, I’m glad we got there in the end.
If i spent a single character trying to “summarize your perspective” unsolicited you’d accuse me of misrepresenting you.
I told you straight up what I disagreed with, and you ignored it or didnt understand it. I could not have been clearer if i tried. Next time I’ll just assume you’re doing it it bad faith and call it a day.
Here’s a template you can use:
“It sounds like you’re saying (argument). Do I have that right?”
Pretty hard to characterize that in bad faith. Establishing a shared mental model is pretty essential. It also puts you in a position where it will be extremely hard for your brain to trick you into thinking that the other person said “yes” when they said “no” or vice versa, whereas misunderstanding what someone is saying is surprisingly easy to do, even when you’re not giving mental weight to “what liberals believe” in your model, or anything else that explicitly discounts the need to read or understand anything that’s being written to you.
You can also try this template:
“It might seem like i’m lecturing you because I don’t think you’re grasping what I’m saying.”
“sticking your fingers in your ears”
“paternalistic bullshit.”
That’s always super helpful and productive, you could try that too.
Lmao each of those were after you had completely missed my point, that had not changed and which you had not acknowledged. You will not find a simgle moment in your responses where you correctly understood what I was saying.
Respectfully, fuck off with your patronization
I know! I was super unreasonable. I was required to agree with you completely, and everything different than your point was a weird distraction. It’s horrible. You’re right to call it out and get all upset.
I don’t give a shit if you agree with my point, don’t be dense. I cared that you weren’t comprehending it.
Democrats are so cooked.
I know! I was super unreasonable. It’s the worst. You’re definitely right to get all upset and constantly write things that are the opposite of what I think and get mad. It’s obviously the way. Obviously.
I am done now, I was just having fun. I hope that my condescending assistance has been helpful.
Grateful for the opportunity to learn from such a practiced propagandist.