5 ms·

I think that is the point that OP is making, and though I think the overall post is rather salient there might be a better direction for them to take that argum

I think that is the point that OP is making, and though I think the overall post is rather salient there might be a better direction for them to take that argument... Perhaps a better way to look at that particular note is while that's how the right views the left (depending on the camp) the issue within the left is the rampant infighting. Sort of like https://xkcd.com/1095/ https://xkcd.com/1095/ . None of these are hard rules obviously but there are a lot of cliques within just LGBT where bi people are hated/excluded from lesbian/gay circles, trans people are excluded from all of the above. Stuff like vegans vs vegetarians, environmentalists vs those focused on social issues, and on and on. I think the saying "the left fights while the right falls in line" is something that needs to be really driven home.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Agreed. There is indeed massive infighting amongst the left, and obviously a lot of misguided people. But generally and in theory I still disagree on the GP's point that the left aims to divide our society.
- AWildC182 6y ago
  Yea, I don't think it's really accurate even if it's sometimes the unintentional result. It's frustrating because I really appreciate the rest of the perspective they're offering.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It may not be that they intend to divide. It may be the inevitable result of their current strategy. If the way you tell people to think about society is to categorize people by race, sex, gender, etc., then that's... not very unifying. If the central point of your message is that certain groups treat members of other groups badly, that's not just not unifying, that's dividing. (It may be necessary dividing, but it's still dividing.)
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Empirical analysis of our current society shows that there are divides and power relations along racial, gender and class lines. If you can't acknowledge them, there is no way to fix them. And most importantly, in practice the left reduces the divide. If you have a better idea of how to fix it, I'm all ears. But fixing a problem without recognizing it exists is, well, not typically accepted as solid practice.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Take "White Fragility", for instance. Can there be unconscious racism? Certainly. But telling every white person that they are inherently racist simply because they are white... yeah, that's not how you "reduce the divide". (It's also both wrong and racist.) I don't know what the answer is, but that wasn't it. All that did was tell people that they're dealing with flaming zealots with ridiculously out-there ideas. And it told whites that the author had selected them as being part of the bad guys, without actually knowing anything about them - and therefore that there was no point in engaging with people like the author, since all they were going to get was condemnation, regardless of what the reality was.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The book "White Fragility" was rejected pretty soundly by most leftists, actually. Corporate pseudo-progressives loved it, however. I definitely agree that a lot of people are coopting leftist languages. But ultimately, corporate diversity consultants aren't leftists, they're delusional neoliberals. Here are criticisms of "White Fragility" from a leftist perspective : https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/racism-george-floyd-racial-justice-protests-privilege https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/racism-george-floyd-racial-ju... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/diversity-consultants-racism-seminars-corporate-america https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/divers... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dig-read-this-not-white-fragility-jared-loggins-wendi/id791564318?i=1000484054349 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dig-read-this-not-whit... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFTtR34cek https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFTtR34cek As you can see, there are a lot of them. I definitely agree with your criticism of White Fragility , and so do the vast majority of leftists. I'd attribute the stunningly deficient thinking behind it to trying to explain why we still have the divide starting with the assumption that our economic and political structures are fundamental good, which they aren't, but a less charitable and a bit more cooky explanation would be that it's a classic case of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Agreed. There is indeed massive infighting amongst the left, and obviously a lot of misguided people. But generally and in theory I still disagree on the GP's point that the left aims to divide our society.

AWildC182 6y ago
Yea, I don't think it's really accurate even if it's sometimes the unintentional result. It's frustrating because I really appreciate the rest of the perspective they're offering.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It may not be that they intend to divide. It may be the inevitable result of their current strategy. If the way you tell people to think about society is to categorize people by race, sex, gender, etc., then that's... not very unifying. If the central point of your message is that certain groups treat members of other groups badly, that's not just not unifying, that's dividing. (It may be necessary dividing, but it's still dividing.)
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Empirical analysis of our current society shows that there are divides and power relations along racial, gender and class lines. If you can't acknowledge them, there is no way to fix them. And most importantly, in practice the left reduces the divide. If you have a better idea of how to fix it, I'm all ears. But fixing a problem without recognizing it exists is, well, not typically accepted as solid practice.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Take "White Fragility", for instance. Can there be unconscious racism? Certainly. But telling every white person that they are inherently racist simply because they are white... yeah, that's not how you "reduce the divide". (It's also both wrong and racist.) I don't know what the answer is, but that wasn't it. All that did was tell people that they're dealing with flaming zealots with ridiculously out-there ideas. And it told whites that the author had selected them as being part of the bad guys, without actually knowing anything about them - and therefore that there was no point in engaging with people like the author, since all they were going to get was condemnation, regardless of what the reality was.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The book "White Fragility" was rejected pretty soundly by most leftists, actually. Corporate pseudo-progressives loved it, however. I definitely agree that a lot of people are coopting leftist languages. But ultimately, corporate diversity consultants aren't leftists, they're delusional neoliberals. Here are criticisms of "White Fragility" from a leftist perspective : https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/racism-george-floyd-racial-justice-protests-privilege https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/racism-george-floyd-racial-ju... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/diversity-consultants-racism-seminars-corporate-america https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/divers... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dig-read-this-not-white-fragility-jared-loggins-wendi/id791564318?i=1000484054349 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dig-read-this-not-whit... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFTtR34cek https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFTtR34cek As you can see, there are a lot of them. I definitely agree with your criticism of White Fragility , and so do the vast majority of leftists. I'd attribute the stunningly deficient thinking behind it to trying to explain why we still have the divide starting with the assumption that our economic and political structures are fundamental good, which they aren't, but a less charitable and a bit more cooky explanation would be that it's a classic case of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.