6 ms·

To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream. Saul Alinksy's work has undoubtedl

To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream. Saul Alinksy's work has undoubtedly been a central tool in this transition. Here are some of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which succinctly represent the behaviour of people today: 2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 3. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

dtornabene 10y ago
I just love this idea. If only I didn't get stares and outright contempt for my (leftist) political views. If only one of the two parties here in America actually ran on a social democratic platform (let alone further left) and won. If only there weren't literally ICE raids sweeping up undocumented people like its interwar europe. This position is just bizarre. Flat out bizarre. It serves only to stfile debate and keep the frame of rhetoric for anyone from the center right over squarely within "I'm in the minority, I'm the victim".
- 9q 10y ago
  Can I ask you why you are against deporting illegal immigrants? The illegal immigrants obviously understood it was a risk when they came, and any country is entitled to enforce its border security. Practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants. And deporting illegal immigrants doesn't bar you from trying again to enter as a legal immigrant.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    "practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants" True fact: When I moved to Norway, there wasn't a customs guard on duty when I got off the plane here. The passport was quickly stamped at the layover in Copenhagen, and that is the single stamp in it. I'm sure there are electronic records of my other travels within Europe: Only once have I had any checks getting into a country, and that was more because I was flying back from Amsterdam and they picked me to search for drugs. It would have been somewhat easy for me to just come here, honestly. I didn't and went through immigration instead. People within the EU can pretty freely find work in any country and live there as well, and outside the refugee crisis, I think this likely cuts down on illegal immigration.
    - nyolfen 10y ago
      i'm happy to hear about your pleasant experience, but norway deports illegal immigrants just as much as any other nation https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&q=norway%20illegal%20immigrant%20deportations&=&=&oq=&gs_l= https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp...
      - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
        Hence not disputing the deportation, merely the level of border security.
    - 9q 10y ago
      The EU is an obvious special case because they have allowances for members of EU to easily travel between the countries. And I can't speak for your one example, because that could have been a case of negligent border security. I could just as easily give an example of a person traveling to another country and having a lot of difficulty at customs, with them questioning why you are there, and forcing you to provide justification. And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream. Not really. It's true that a position left of the center established by the balance of the parties in government is mainstream in the population, but that's because the parties in government have moved right relative to the population (the Republican party consistently, the Democratic Party merely on average as a result of the big rightward jump of the Clintonian "third way", from which there has been some subsequent minor movement back toward the left, with some ambiguous signalling that bigger moves in that direction are possible in the near future.)
- maxforce 10y ago
  Conservatives and religious people are unquestionably a very small minority and openly discriminated against within academia. What you're describing may be true of the US federal politics, what I'm referring to is more widespread change for example in academia, media and also policy globally. This reminds me of an article I read about a black christian academic reporting that he suffers greater discrimination for being christian then for being black: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessi...
sangnoir 10y ago
> To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream The left isn't what it used to be: Ronald Reagan would be considered on the left today with his EPA-loving ways.

dtornabene 10y ago

I just love this idea. If only I didn't get stares and outright contempt for my (leftist) political views. If only one of the two parties here in America actually ran on a social democratic platform (let alone further left) and won. If only there weren't literally ICE raids sweeping up undocumented people like its interwar europe. This position is just bizarre. Flat out bizarre. It serves only to stfile debate and keep the frame of rhetoric for anyone from the center right over squarely within "I'm in the minority, I'm the victim".

9q 10y ago
Can I ask you why you are against deporting illegal immigrants? The illegal immigrants obviously understood it was a risk when they came, and any country is entitled to enforce its border security. Practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants. And deporting illegal immigrants doesn't bar you from trying again to enter as a legal immigrant.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  "practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants" True fact: When I moved to Norway, there wasn't a customs guard on duty when I got off the plane here. The passport was quickly stamped at the layover in Copenhagen, and that is the single stamp in it. I'm sure there are electronic records of my other travels within Europe: Only once have I had any checks getting into a country, and that was more because I was flying back from Amsterdam and they picked me to search for drugs. It would have been somewhat easy for me to just come here, honestly. I didn't and went through immigration instead. People within the EU can pretty freely find work in any country and live there as well, and outside the refugee crisis, I think this likely cuts down on illegal immigration.
  - nyolfen 10y ago
    i'm happy to hear about your pleasant experience, but norway deports illegal immigrants just as much as any other nation https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&q=norway%20illegal%20immigrant%20deportations&=&=&oq=&gs_l= https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp...
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      Hence not disputing the deportation, merely the level of border security.
  - 9q 10y ago
    The EU is an obvious special case because they have allowances for members of EU to easily travel between the countries. And I can't speak for your one example, because that could have been a case of negligent border security. I could just as easily give an example of a person traveling to another country and having a lot of difficulty at customs, with them questioning why you are there, and forcing you to provide justification. And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream. Not really. It's true that a position left of the center established by the balance of the parties in government is mainstream in the population, but that's because the parties in government have moved right relative to the population (the Republican party consistently, the Democratic Party merely on average as a result of the big rightward jump of the Clintonian "third way", from which there has been some subsequent minor movement back toward the left, with some ambiguous signalling that bigger moves in that direction are possible in the near future.)

maxforce 10y ago
Conservatives and religious people are unquestionably a very small minority and openly discriminated against within academia. What you're describing may be true of the US federal politics, what I'm referring to is more widespread change for example in academia, media and also policy globally. This reminds me of an article I read about a black christian academic reporting that he suffers greater discrimination for being christian then for being black: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessi...

sangnoir 10y ago

> To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream The left isn't what it used to be: Ronald Reagan would be considered on the left today with his EPA-loving ways.