Deny, Defend, Depose

[Gorbles]

Gorbles, they are opposed to the social attitudes of the left, of both progressives and Dems, specifically, the imperious manner in which the left tends to categorically deny their opposition has any moral legitimacy.

No, that's not choosing. To borrow your word, that's "wiggling".

Wiggling. You are a self-described leftist and not immune from participation in the same destructive processes described.

Your opinion is that said processes are allegedly destructive. But when you can't see the difference between "leftist" and "centre-right political party" (and I'm being charitable there), your perception is the issue.

Open your mind a bit. Treat things as exploratory instead of working back from a predefined conclusion. Again, if you're truly interested in solving the problems of the working clases. Even if our approaches differ the goals should be the same. But if your reasoning includes "the Democrats are like Gorbles" then you're so far off-base I lack the words to fairly describe how far off-base you are. It's not wiggling.

Gorbles, Dustin Guastella is a Teamster chief, a researcher of the Center for Working Class Politics, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and of almost unimpeachable leftist credentials. There are only a handful who can claim better.

Am I supposed to . . . care? What is this paltry appeal to authority? I already told you, I value actions.

I could tell you so much about internal DSA drama. Would it matter? Would it change your mind? How many folks in the DSA do you know personally? As apparently appeals to authority are valued, at least by you.

If you would categorize his dissent as right-wing, similar to aelf, you are effectively attempting to deny any criticism regardless of source, categorically. What does that sound more like: a healthy group, or a rigid, doctrinaire, non-adaptive group who'd not see their chokehold on power lessen?

Who said I was denying it?

It is criticism, but the validity of any criticism is contextual. It's an opinion, in short. Me disagreeing with it is a whole other tangent, perhaps a whole other thread. I could as easily say to you that categorising my dissent as left-wing or otherwise "progressive" is you effectively attempting to deny any criticism of the institutions you hold dear.

You claim of a chokehold on power. Where is it? Who wields this power? Can you speak in concrete, actual terms? You couldn't in the previous tangent, so please, name names. Demonstrate the causal chain.

Don't say it's me. That'd be hilarious.

The greatest opponent of leftism are the value imperialists that occupy its major positions, formally and informally. They have become so successful that their ideals are now so synonymous that to defy them categorically makes one a conservative? Dire state, indeed. As I'm actually interested in reform, I cannot take the efforts of their henchmen seriously.

I thought your whole point was that progressives had failed? How are its adherents successful? Why is the thing you're opposed to simultaneously weak and strong; a success and a failure? This seems contradictory.

Like, help me out here. What reform are you even interested in, beyond the removal of all cultural progressivism?

Trying to have the nexus of egalitarianism be synonymous with the central interaction of class and accreditation, not going to work very well.

I don't think Voidwalkin understands how agreeing with you works against the point he's trying to make.

It's an inherently conservative argument. You and I, most of the time, know where we disagree. We disagree on a lot. The problem is Voidwalkin is trying to present a right-wing argument as left-wing common sense.

If politics were that easy, we wouldn't call it politics

 

[Senethro]

How can a position be both so frivolous as to be unworthy of support, and yet so heinous as to warrant aligning with your class enemy against your own interests to oppose it?

Either it matters or it doesn't.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, that's not choosing. To borrow your word, that's "wiggling".

Your opinion is that said processes are allegedly destructive. But when you can't see the difference between "leftist" and "centre-right political party" (and I'm being charitable there), your perception is the issue.

Open your mind a bit. Treat things as exploratory instead of working back from a predefined conclusion. Again, if you're truly interested in solving the problems of the working clases. Even if our approaches differ the goals should be the same. But if your reasoning includes "the Democrats are like Gorbles" then you're so far off-base I lack the words to fairly describe how far off-base you are. It's not wiggling.

Am I supposed to . . . care? What is this paltry appeal to authority? I already told you, I value actions.

I could tell you so much about internal DSA drama. Would it matter? Would it change your mind? How many folks in the DSA do you know personally? As apparently appeals to authority are valued, at least by you.

Who said I was denying it?

It is criticism, but the validity of any criticism is contextual. It's an opinion, in short. Me disagreeing with it is a whole other tangent, perhaps a whole other thread. I could as easily say to you that categorising my dissent as left-wing or otherwise "progressive" is you effectively attempting to deny any criticism of the institutions you hold dear.

You claim of a chokehold on power. Where is it? Who wields this power? Can you speak in concrete, actual terms? You couldn't in the previous tangent, so please, name names. Demonstrate the causal chain.

Don't say it's me. That'd be hilarious.

I thought your whole point was that progressives had failed? How are its adherents successful? Why is the thing you're opposed to simultaneously weak and strong; a success and a failure? This seems contradictory.

Like, help me out here. What reform are you even interested in, beyond the removal of all cultural progressivism?


I don't think Voidwalkin understands how agreeing with you works against the point he's trying to make.

It's an inherently conservative argument. You and I, most of the time, know where we disagree. We disagree on a lot. The problem is Voidwalkin is trying to present a right-wing argument as left-wing common sense.

If politics were that easy, we wouldn't call it politics

Which point?

Luigi?

 

[Gorbles]

Which point?

Luigi?

The one I quoted. The nexus.

Egalitarianism is often scoffed at by the "modern left" Voidwalkin so derides. It can't be the nexus for anything except in the perception of those who put that upon the modern left, vs. originating within it.

 

[Voidwalkin]

How can a position be both so frivolous as to be unworthy of support, and yet so heinous as to warrant aligning with your class enemy against your own interests to oppose it?

Either it matters or it doesn't.

Incorrect read. As it happens, I recently helped a neighbor move who had a transman son. I don't have any problems using preferred pronouns nor think it's heinous conceptually.

To presume it's thought heinous is not a good representation, overall. Some hillbillies do, but these are relatively few. It's the one thing worse than to be thought immoral: it's thought absurd, and is roundly mocked. Old Joey B clarifying he prefers he/him was pointless and ridiculous.

You wanna simultaneously be a social activist and a reformer. It is practically untenable. There is a great shot you'll be ineffective at both if you attempt it simultaneously. Politics is morality to you, I never expect you to see it that way, but I have to argue against you, because time is a limited resource that neither can afford to waste and you use it inefficiently.

No, that's not choosing. To borrow your word, that's "wiggling".

Sigh. Brother, there is no meaningful distinction to choose from. There is no real difference between the social positions of Dems and progressives to the people. They'll tell you as much.

"wiggling".
Your opinion is that said processes are allegedly destructive. But when you can't see the difference between "leftist" and "centre-right political party" (and I'm being charitable there), your perception is the issue.

Open your mind a bit. Treat things as exploratory instead of working back from a predefined conclusion. Again, if you're truly interested in solving the problems of the working clases. Even if our approaches differ the goals should be the same. But if your reasoning includes "the Democrats are like Gorbles" then you're so far off-base I lack the words to fairly describe how far off-base you are. It's not wiggling.

Who needs to be of open mind is the core question here. OTOH, we have someone claiming that it is unwise to illegitimize the popular opinions of the majority you claim to seek to represent, and others, who claim that the present existant consensus should hold despite clear differences in preferences.

Yeah....

Am I supposed to . . . care? What is this paltry appeal to authority? I already told you, I value actions.

I could tell you so much about internal DSA drama. Would it matter? Would it change your mind? How many folks in the DSA do you know personally? As apparently appeals to authority are valued, at least by you.

I establish his bonafides only to show you'll attempt to illegitimize any contrasting opinion without consideration, while making pretty ridiculous smears of the integrity of those in dissent.

You claim of a chokehold on power. Where is it? Who wields this power? Can you speak in concrete, actual terms? You couldn't in the previous tangent, so please, name names. Demonstrate the causal chain.

This was established in the Guastella article. Less than 2% of American representatives are of working class origin, because they lack the money to acquire the credentials and connections to breach the fortress.

There is your formal structure. Informally, there are rules about discussing other posters, so I'll leave it to your speculation regarding who is the de facto most authoritative representative of that structure here.

I thought your whole point was that progressives had failed? How are its adherents successful? Why is the thing you're opposed to simultaneously weak and strong; a success and a failure? This seems contradictory.

What reform are you even interested in, beyond the removal of all cultural progressivism?

What occurs is that a set of values or mannerisms can help you climb within a group, but simultaneously put you at odds with larger society. A pagan that conducts a bizarre ritual will earn respect from his fellow committed pagans, while the rest of the country are of the mind they are loons.

In this instance, the mannerisms and connections and ideologies learned within universities are favored by donors. Those who learn them ascend the ladder. The working class, however, hates these things, and despises you, weakening you in the general.

 

[Farm Boy]

The one I quoted. The nexus.

Egalitarianism is often scoffed at by the "modern left" Voidwalkin so derides. It can't be the nexus for anything except in the perception of those who put that upon the modern left, vs. originating within it.

Well, he and I are talking about here.

The nexus is higher education in all of its flavors. It won't easily do both justice and accreditation. They work cross purposes, those things. And to that limited point, I have no idea why it would be a conservative, liberal, or pinko whatever point. Seems pretty unimportant, the label for it.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, he and I are talking about here.

The nexus is higher education in all of its flavors. It won't easily do both justice and accreditation. They work cross purposes, those things. And to that limited point, I have no idea why that would be a conservative, liberal, or pinko whatever point.

And again, this is an inherently you argument, because it hinges on your perceptive of higher education, justice and accreditation. Like, are our ideas of justice the same? I doubt it. This isn't antagonistic, it just feels like what it is.

He's more than happy to point to Teamsters when they support him. The DSA too. Are you? Would the both of you remain so if I found another pointof view from within the same organisation? Or would they be inherently corrupted by the "imperialists" he's so critical of?

I'm asking you questions for him. It's not fair. But he was arguing with me, so. Hard to parse the defining line between your insert and his claims.

 

[Voidwalkin]

And again, this is an inherently you argument, because it hinges on your perceptive of higher education, justice and accreditation. Like, are our ideas of justice the same? I doubt it. This isn't antagonistic, it just feels like what it is.

He's more than happy to point to Teamsters when they support him. The DSA too. Are you? Would the both of you remain so if I found another pointof view from within the same organisation? Or would they be inherently corrupted by the "imperialists" he's so critical of?

I'm asking you questions for him. It's not fair. But he was arguing with me, so. Hard to parse the defining line between your insert and his claims.

FWIW, I'm happy to point to the Teamsters when they don't, too. Their president, Sean O'Brien, famously spoke at the RNC. Organized labor is showing you here that they are split on this matter. It's no secret union members vote Trump in meaningful numbers, and it's natural leadership is going to respond to this.

The core of the left is repeatedly telling you:"we have concerns about the left", and you should probably be willing to address these, as these should 100% be your foundation.

 

[Gorbles]

FWIW, I'm happy to point to the Teamsters when they don't, too. Their president, Sean O'Brien, famously spoke at the RNC. Organized labor is showing you here that they are split on this matter. It's no secret union members vote Trump in meaningful numbers, and it's natural leadership is going to respond to this.

This is self-explanatory. I even said the working class is left and right. You tried to twist it into me dismissing what was being said.

The core of the left is repeatedly telling you:"we have concerns about the left", and you should probably be willing to address these, as these should 100% be your foundation.

The core of the left? Again, with the appeal to authority. One voice in the DSA is one voice. One Teamsters voice is one voice. Right?

Teamsters social media attacks leader over Republican convention speech

Deleted post said, ‘unions gain nothing from endorsing the racist, misogynistic, and anti-trans politics of the far right’

www.theguardian.com

Or wrong? This voice seems to go a bit further than Dustin's. How authoritatively should we treat it? How impeccable are their credentials?

 

[Voidwalkin]

This is self-explanatory. I even said the working class is left and right. You tried to twist it into me dismissing what was being said.

The core of the left? Again, with the appeal to authority. One voice in the DSA is one voice. One Teamsters voice is one voice. Right?

Teamsters social media attacks leader over Republican convention speech

Deleted post said, ‘unions gain nothing from endorsing the racist, misogynistic, and anti-trans politics of the far right’

www.theguardian.com

Or wrong? This voice seems to go a bit further than Dustin's. How authoritatively should we treat it? How impeccable are their credentials?

Gorbles, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters released data indicating they believe the majority of their union membership voted for Donald Trump. If we are to holistically judge the opinion of the union, my claim that you should be concerned is an understatement. I did so deliberately, in hope you'd genuinely check on the situation and realize how bad it is, rather than double down.

You appear determined to deny any legitimacy to any argument that claims the elite of the left ignore the social positions of their historical voters, regardless.

There should be no mistake here: the union is the core of the left. It is the unified voice of the worker against the interest of capital. I often deride Marx, but even I am OK with his claim that the union is the most reliable force in favor of working people. This really should provoke some real introspection as to why the left has seen its core increasingly say "actually nah **** em, let's go with capital"

 

[Gorbles]

Gorbles, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters released data indicating they believe the majority of their union membership voted for Donald Trump. If we are to holistically judge the opinion of the union, my claim that you should be concerned is an understatement. I did so deliberately, in hope you'd genuinely check on the situation and realize how bad it is, rather than double down.

My good friend, it's not doubling down to disagree with an assertion.

There should be no mistake here: the union is the core of the left.

Your opinion is not fact, nomatter how many times its repeated.

Is it concerning that so many of the working class are drawn to Trump? Yes. Does this make people who vote Trump left wing in the way you oppose progressives for being? Of course not. Cultural and economic are different axes. Those interested in the intersection of both use the (obvious) word "intersectionality", but these tend to be (once again) the progressives you've chosen to oppose.

If the working classes are being consciously political at all, they're being driven primarily along the economic axis as most (if not all) of the 2024 election analysis has verified. Of course, I've said this already and you ignored it, so hey. You do you

You're the one trying to draw a parallel back to the cultural. You are failing at being convincing, I'm afraid. Even with it being Christmas, I can't give you that as charity. Your argument remains wholly conservative (despite aspirations to be more economically progressive, I feel yours will also meet the wall at capital, ironically. You seek reform within the state, and the state is capitalist).

 

[Farm Boy]

No, I don't see that as a me thing from my stinky, messy, purple swirl.

The economies of consumption will devour. Accreditation stratifies. That's the point. How it stratifies is downstream from there.

 

[Senethro]

Incorrect read. As it happens, I recently helped a neighbor move who had a transman son. I don't have any problems using preferred pronouns nor think it's heinous conceptually.

To presume it's thought heinous is not a good representation, overall. Some hillbillies do, but these are relatively few. It's the one thing worse than to be thought immoral: it's thought absurd, and is roundly mocked. Old Joey B clarifying he prefers he/him was pointless and ridiculous.

You wanna simultaneously be a social activist and a reformer. It is practically untenable. There is a great shot you'll be ineffective at both if you attempt it simultaneously. Politics is morality to you, I never expect you to see it that way, but I have to argue against you, because time is a limited resource that neither can afford to waste and you use it inefficiently.

Again, you're trying to have it both ways. It matters or it doesn't. If it isn't thought heinous, it would not generate the determined opposition that you're claiming makes it politically expedient to abandon these groups/issues.

So does it matter or not?

Also - what is the correlation in other nations between welfare/redustibution vs social tolerance in culture? Does this resemble your claimed pattern of only being able to do one?(on a short timescale) Do any other nations struggle on one axis directly because of the other?

 

[Kyriakos]

While historically, defenders of lower classes have come from the higher middle class, has Luigi described his thought process; has he at least verified that he wrote the 'manifesto' attributed to him? He declared that he isn't guilty of the charges, but is it known how that is meant?
Class war is real, and gets nastier the larger the gap between affluent and poor, moreover when the poor are barely able to go on living. Luigi came from a family with considerable wealth, it appears, so it's unlikely he ever experienced being downtrodden in that way - of course he may have formed a very strong idea of it.
The charge of terrorism certainly is not by chance, but due to the symbolic threat to the system. A death sentence would, of course, only make Luigi a literal martyr.

 

[Arwon]

Just to be clear here are still insisting on identifying the United States Democratic Party, of all creatures, as meaningfully left wing or what. Because that seems like a pretty central contrivance in what some ppl are trying to argue and it's one of the beggiest questions there ever was.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Again, you're trying to have it both ways. It matters or it doesn't. If it isn't thought heinous, it would not generate the determined opposition that you're claiming makes it politically expedient to abandon these groups/issues.

So does it matter or not?

Also - what is the correlation in other nations between welfare/redustibution vs social tolerance in culture? Does this resemble your claimed pattern of only being able to do one? Do any other nations struggle on one axis directly because of the other?

You offer false options to choose from. There is no necessity a thing be thought heinous to be politically costly. Being ridiculous explains that sufficiently. There was no need for Joe Biden to declare his pronouns. That question was never in real doubt.

Interestingly, I last saw FDR make a pop culture appearance in a Reddit thread. R/Presidents. They're sorta knowledgable. Not atrocious. Despite the success of his New Deal programs, many judged him harshly. "He was racist, systemic racism present in the New Deal". It dawned on me that he is being evaluated by activists as though political figures are activists themselves. He's a politician. You judge figures and even ideas on comparable grounds. Activism first.

The problem is that the activism is always initially unpopular(or youre sorta a bad activist), and an election is basically a popularity contest. In the Biden/pronouns thing, it was ridiculed, not stridently opposed nor thought particularly heinous, by a public fatigued by increasingly bizarre moral busibodiness. He signaled to the activists he gets it. He, unfortunately, also signaled to a greater number, who are not activists, that he will entertain the absurd, something already irritating the public like a bad rash. There are many other comparable instances of this nature.

when that is a cultural expectation, which it has become amongst the modern left, politician analyzed as activist, the politics are gonna be unsatisfactory. The politician is always a **** activist, always concerned with their popularity and often wavering(seen by Dems going right every 4 years) but, simultaneously, alienating the general public by entertaining every demand on every issue to an extent. It's lose/lose.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not sure just where this thread is going but I can add a bit about "woke" and all its siblings. It's roots go back to the 1980s when "politically correct" (pc) began to take hold in the US and Europe. PC was the label that the right attached to the "new improved" language they were adding to our vocabulary to make it more inclusive and less hateful and discriminatory. PC has lost its steam in recent decades and when those left of center began to enhance our language again with new gender terms and pronouns, The Right has called it "woke" in the same manner that they went after liberals with PC. The language transition will work itself out over time and some of the new words wills tick and others fade away. The Right often sees such language changes as censorship of the words they grew up with and that have been in common usage for their lifetime,

 

[Voidwalkin]

Is it concerning that so many of the working class are drawn to Trump? Yes. Does this make people who vote Trump left wing in the way you oppose progressives for being? Of course not. Cultural and economic are different axes. Those interested in the intersection of both use the (obvious) word "intersectionality", but these tend to be (once again) the progressives you've chosen to oppose

Most exit polling I've seen suggest around 40% identified the nebulous economy. 20% immigration, 10% abortion, with lower numbers of various social issues beneath. I suppose you can conclude economy is the single largest, but when the social are grouped rather than separated, it becomes less clear that this position holds.

BTW, I hate broadly way more than intersectionality. Intersectionality rarely gets used, broadly is a far more frequent signal.

If the working classes are being consciously political at all, they're being driven primarily along the economic axis as most (if not all) of the 2024 election analysis has verified. Of course, I've said this already and you ignored it, so hey. You do you

I'm unsure if you realize that "if the working classes are being consciously political at all" is, well, condescending to the majority of the country. You've implied that whichever way they vote, they've more or less mustered all the brainpower of their one orange braincell(if even that) in the forging of the decision.

You're the one trying to draw a parallel back to the cultural. You are failing at being convincing, I'm afraid. Even with it being Christmas, I can't give you that as charity. Your argument remains wholly conservative (despite aspirations to be more economically progressive, I feel yours will also meet the wall at capital, ironically. You seek reform within the state, and the state is capitalist).

An increasingly prominent chorus of the countries foremost leftists are telling you the ideology has lost touch with the working class, the historical core of the left is abandoning it, and you're still classifying any dissent as categorically conservative.

In other words: no problem, nor could there ever be, since only a conservative would think there is anything bad here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just to be clear here are still insisting on identifying the United States Democratic Party, of all creatures, as meaningfully left wing or what. Because that seems like a pretty central contrivance in what some ppl are trying to argue and it's one of the beggiest questions there ever was.

Democrats are a big tent party progressive left to center right with around 30% support combined.

Remember my comments shot the actual numbers of progressives? Sub 20% in most countries imho.

 

[Zardnaar]

Most exit polling I've seen suggest around 40% identified the nebulous economy. 20% immigration, 10% abortion, with lower numbers of various social issues beneath. I suppose you can conclude economy is the single largest, but when the social are grouped rather than separated, it becomes less clear that this position holds.

BTW, I hate broadly way more than intersectionality. Intersectionality rarely gets used, broadly is a far more frequent signal.

I'm unsure if you realize that "if the working classes are being consciously political at all" is, well, condescending to the majority of the country. You've implied that whichever way they vote, they've more or less mustered all the brainpower of their one orange braincell(if even that) in the forging of the decision.

An increasingly prominent chorus of the countries foremost leftists are telling you the ideology has lost touch with the working class, the historical core of the left is abandoning it, and you're still classifying any dissent as categorically conservative.

In other words: no problem, nor could there ever be, since only a conservative would think there is anything bad here.

From memory it was 30%+ for democracy and the economy.

Foreign affairs clocked in at 4% abortion was mid teens (14%?) iirc.