4 ms·

> My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. Like women who have

> My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that.

Jochim 4y ago
> Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Ben Shapiro is quite clearly Jewish and regularly reposted by the same kind of guys that were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. The right are practical beyond the point of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of the moment. > I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that. The left needs to be aggressive in the right way. The right are extremely effective at being extremely hateful while also guiding relatively normal, if sometimes problematic, people down a path that takes them much farther right. From what I've seen, leftists doing the same work to reach out to the uninformed and apathetic are often attacked for a perceived lack ideological purity. I've not seen that kind of behaviour from the right and I think it plays a big part in pushing people away. Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  >Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines. Why is it race instead of class and not race AND class? Also, who has been canceled inappropriately? In fact, who has even suffered significant consequences for being cancelled? My impression is that it's a band of rapists who become right wing celebrities and get book deals. I think the people being pushed right are: 1. Generally already on the right 2. If they are pushed, it's by the internal contradictions on the left. And those internal contradictions are caused by a wavering of conviction, not an excess
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > Why is it race instead of class and not race AND class? It's not race and class because race has eclipsed class in the public discourse. I don't know why that is but if I was being cynical I'd say it's to sow division and limit effectiveness. On And vs Or, there's limited space in public discourse. Introducing additional issues necessitates that space being divided into smaller chunks. Grouping the issues also only serves to narrow your potential support. That's not to say certain issues can't/shouldn't be grouped. Personally I believe that a focus on class would be more effective in dealing with the harms of systemic racism than the current approach focused on race. While also taking a lot of steam out of the right's rhetoric. I honestly only see harm in the current approach where upper middle class white people tell some guy living in a trailer, paycheck to paycheck, that he has white privilege and that's why he should be paying reparations and passed over for a job. > Also, who has been canceled inappropriately? I'm not talking about people being cancelled, I'm talking about how we engage with people who are either politically apathetic or exploring a leftist perspective for the first time. > 1. Generally already on the right There seems to be this insular view that we should only engage with people that already fully agree with us and it often results in attacking people that might have problematic views that they would otherwise have become open to examining. I've seen a lot of younger people who don't necessarily have fully formed opinions pushed away in this way. The same applies for people who are generally apathetic and maybe examining their opinions for the first time. > 2. If they are pushed, it's by the internal contradictions on the left. And those internal contradictions are caused by a wavering of conviction, not an excess Hard disagree. The demand for ideological purity is the biggest factor that pushes people who haven't quite made up their mind or don't fully engage to the right. We literally saw this play out with the atheism movement in the early 2010s.
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      We will have to agree to disagree. I predict that if the left becomes more aggressive they will win more elections. No one is going to vote for wimpy liberals, whose hearts no longer beat
      - 4y ago

Jochim 4y ago

> Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Ben Shapiro is quite clearly Jewish and regularly reposted by the same kind of guys that were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. The right are practical beyond the point of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of the moment. > I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that. The left needs to be aggressive in the right way. The right are extremely effective at being extremely hateful while also guiding relatively normal, if sometimes problematic, people down a path that takes them much farther right. From what I've seen, leftists doing the same work to reach out to the uninformed and apathetic are often attacked for a perceived lack ideological purity. I've not seen that kind of behaviour from the right and I think it plays a big part in pushing people away. Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines.

philosopher1234 4y ago
>Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines. Why is it race instead of class and not race AND class? Also, who has been canceled inappropriately? In fact, who has even suffered significant consequences for being cancelled? My impression is that it's a band of rapists who become right wing celebrities and get book deals. I think the people being pushed right are: 1. Generally already on the right 2. If they are pushed, it's by the internal contradictions on the left. And those internal contradictions are caused by a wavering of conviction, not an excess
- Jochim 4y ago
  > Why is it race instead of class and not race AND class? It's not race and class because race has eclipsed class in the public discourse. I don't know why that is but if I was being cynical I'd say it's to sow division and limit effectiveness. On And vs Or, there's limited space in public discourse. Introducing additional issues necessitates that space being divided into smaller chunks. Grouping the issues also only serves to narrow your potential support. That's not to say certain issues can't/shouldn't be grouped. Personally I believe that a focus on class would be more effective in dealing with the harms of systemic racism than the current approach focused on race. While also taking a lot of steam out of the right's rhetoric. I honestly only see harm in the current approach where upper middle class white people tell some guy living in a trailer, paycheck to paycheck, that he has white privilege and that's why he should be paying reparations and passed over for a job. > Also, who has been canceled inappropriately? I'm not talking about people being cancelled, I'm talking about how we engage with people who are either politically apathetic or exploring a leftist perspective for the first time. > 1. Generally already on the right There seems to be this insular view that we should only engage with people that already fully agree with us and it often results in attacking people that might have problematic views that they would otherwise have become open to examining. I've seen a lot of younger people who don't necessarily have fully formed opinions pushed away in this way. The same applies for people who are generally apathetic and maybe examining their opinions for the first time. > 2. If they are pushed, it's by the internal contradictions on the left. And those internal contradictions are caused by a wavering of conviction, not an excess Hard disagree. The demand for ideological purity is the biggest factor that pushes people who haven't quite made up their mind or don't fully engage to the right. We literally saw this play out with the atheism movement in the early 2010s.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    We will have to agree to disagree. I predict that if the left becomes more aggressive they will win more elections. No one is going to vote for wimpy liberals, whose hearts no longer beat
    - 4y ago