3 ms·

"white supremacists and neo-reactionaries" are practically non-existent. Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels

"white supremacists and neo-reactionaries" are practically non-existent. Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels on them. We did NOT "choose to embrace a racial narrative", it was imputed on us and we don't know how to fight it effectively (a la "I don't believe X!" "well, that's surefire proof that you believe X!").

krapp 7y ago
>Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels on them. I do understand my opponents - they won't shut up about themselves. The labels I ascribe to them are reasonable extrapolations of the rhetoric they use when they express their contempt for liberals, progressives, feminists, "city dwellers," immigrants, and anyone to the left of themselves, or with whom they disagree. If such people are a minority, then they are a very vocal and, apparently, very influential minority. And if their views don't represent yours, then I would humbly suggest that you may be the one who doesn't understand your allies. >We did NOT "choose to embrace a racial narrative", it was imputed on us and we don't know how to fight it effectively (a la "I don't believe X!" "well, that's surefire proof that you believe X!"). You seem to be implying that narrative was imputed from the outside, but it wasn't. It's a narrative that the extremists who took the party over from within embraced and a banner they proudly waved in everyone's faces. It wasn't fought against because a house divided against itself cannot stand, and it was embraced because the narrative of the "alienated, disenfranchised white male" at the center of the victim mentality driving right-wing populism was so effective as a galvanizing force that its true white supremacist roots didn't even register, or didn't even matter, to a lot of people.

krapp 7y ago

>Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels on them. I do understand my opponents - they won't shut up about themselves. The labels I ascribe to them are reasonable extrapolations of the rhetoric they use when they express their contempt for liberals, progressives, feminists, "city dwellers," immigrants, and anyone to the left of themselves, or with whom they disagree. If such people are a minority, then they are a very vocal and, apparently, very influential minority. And if their views don't represent yours, then I would humbly suggest that you may be the one who doesn't understand your allies. >We did NOT "choose to embrace a racial narrative", it was imputed on us and we don't know how to fight it effectively (a la "I don't believe X!" "well, that's surefire proof that you believe X!"). You seem to be implying that narrative was imputed from the outside, but it wasn't. It's a narrative that the extremists who took the party over from within embraced and a banner they proudly waved in everyone's faces. It wasn't fought against because a house divided against itself cannot stand, and it was embraced because the narrative of the "alienated, disenfranchised white male" at the center of the victim mentality driving right-wing populism was so effective as a galvanizing force that its true white supremacist roots didn't even register, or didn't even matter, to a lot of people.