There are more of us than there are of them

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t solve your levels. [note I don't know what I meant by this]

If you’re tripping and you care, you will find great media to advance you. For me it was “thelastpsychiatrist” who is the best. Slatestarcodex, to the left of TLP, attests it. The real, though finished blog, successor is Hotelconcierge. But. as “thelastpsychiatrist” says, “if you’re reading it, it’s for you”. Corollary, if not, then not yet or not, simply. The “trappings” thing is the most important thing I said to you. I’m saddened you jumped to “get better trappings” but I can’t expect you otherwise. It’s okay.

Now let’s get to the meat.

No fake friends. This is useless. Gross and counter productive.

We can discuss honestly the effect of social power on people without being evil manipulators. The rightwing does it internally, we do it academically, we should be able to do it here on CFC without it meaning we’re baaaaaaaad guuuyys. Duh. (I hope you all get the reference).

No ruling people. When I say guns for fear, respect, and being liked, that’s it. They have guns, and they are in charge but that doesn’t mean they rule us. Similarly, we aren’t trying to rule them. This is about democracy. The opposition parties (republicans for a while, the leading party while being opposition given the system) have largely not been shady on an electoral level for most of the time since the civil rights act. But starting in the 2000s and ramped up in there 2010s they have been. Why is this? Many reasons, when you have conservatives, culturally later than progressives hitting post modernity and cultural nihilism you could blame it all on that.

But I believe having been more than up to date on our side (most of the past decade of cutting edge discussion is 70s social justice which as a left-even-for-Berkeley-born-and-raised is good but incomplete old hat) so I spent the recent years gobbling up the low hanging fruit of our political opponents.

Brief interlude: think about it, they have different discussions but they still exist, so from a simple biologic understanding of survival they know some useful things, so they figured some things out that are useful and important. So *obviously* they have wisdom outside our immediate purview even if it’s not too alien.

They don’t care what we say. They care what we do. We have our sky falling issues, except ours are real: climate change chief among them. They have a more proper use of the sky falling dear idiom, they fear a loss of Americanism. We can assure them, while also making them less comfortable talking about fighting us (if we lose 2020 then my #1 choice WILL be president in 2025 that’s Ocasio-Cortez but they’re already civil war anxious and if you’ve read CFC for years, yes America has been on brink for civil war since the civil war but that’s the first president since Lincoln that could trigger them), if we are worthy enemies.

Okay fine, you don’t want to own an armalite. It’s cool, I have back taxes and student loans, it would be irresponsible of me too. And if you don’t want to do it, don’t do it. One thing right wingers know better on average than left wingers (per person, but the long tail of getting it goes to the rare left winger who is that cool) is that you let people sort themselves.

Anyway there’s a car I’ve brought us to, but not answered. [I don't know what word I meant instead of car]

We don’t need to change their minds, we do need to chill them out. They want to own to libs. That’s not chill. They don’t like Donald trump in a vacuum. They like him in context of not liking us. It’s pretty easy to understand why! You, gorbles, you trigger me into wanting to spite you for your nonsense. Seriously, let’s breathe together before I continue this line of thought.

Okay hold on.

Okay.

You were like “I unmasked you”. no!!! That’s such garbage. But I know where you came from so we can move forward.

But right wingers, from old school fundamentalists to new school gamer gate weirdos, they lack my same-team tolerance. So they will as cloud points out shoot their foot to hurt us.

We need to chill them out. There are many ways.

I offer a super amazing shortcut. Unfortunately too many democrats are emotionally and egotistically tied into gun banning. Fine, your mistake.
I had @Commodore upset with me in the gun thread for being knee jerkedly I favor of gun control because I pointed out that the only three countries with constitutional rights to bear arms are the neighboring three USA, Mexico, Guatemala. Our three plus neighbors, relative to development, have obscene gun violence. I’m not ignorant to these facts. Pointing them out to commodore made him think I had a position I didn’t. This is not unlike your own cognitive dissonance I thinking I have positions I do not, but I will leave that at this point of acknowledgement and no further for now.

But, for example, if you want gun control, republicans will be against it if only them own guns. They will never support mandatory buybacks of armalite ar-15s unless they are willing to—we outnumber them so...—see us lose 2 for each they own.

Anyway I’m black label, beer, and Belvedere deep so if I managed to tie this all together I rule. Hah. Not likely.

I care deeply about our future. The right wingers are here to stay. There is no pol pot, Maoist solution that is okay. They’re here to stay. We need to get them to play ball again and we need to make some smaller sacrifices for some bigger gains to save the world from a multi degree temperature rise and other problems. We’re America. We’re the free for all. We’re the gnarly not completely safe place where we uphold freedom at our own personal cost. The rest of the world respects us for it, don’t heed their smack talk.

Let’s chill out some conservatives by reminding them the libs they want to own are their own friends. They won’t bother if they like us. They voted more than we do but not 100% either. Right now they don’t want to please us. But imagine they did.

I understand their frame. You don’t. That’s not an insult: think about it, I’m comfortable wading through their language and you are not so, it’s evident. And deeper, I know you don’t because you declared me one of them which is suuuuuuper ridiculous. The furthest right person in this thread sort of agreeing with me is Manfred. Dude. We haven’t even gotten them started. @Tristan_C be quietly like Hygro shut up. He’s hoping you all succeed in shutting me down. At least for the sake of the hegemony of his politics. But also Tristan and I could kick it just fine. No pressure TC.

Anyway im rambling, and there’s a lot i haven’t addressed.

But long story short: this thread is about actionable ways of advancing progressivism/deomcratic-leftism. The disagreements have thus far been pretty simple: their advantage is electoral (not an argument against my proposal), they are not acting in good faith (not an argument against my proposal), and they lack empathy (not true although they are supporting some evil things that are reasonable to make someone consider that). I acknowledge all of these things. Also, I knew these things in high school when I joined this site. None of it invalidates a good idea: let your larger numbers and friend groups work for you, include conservatives and less lefty people, and if you want to maximize this, do it in part through owning the means of the underpinning monopoly on ensuring a single society: violence. And do it through their fetishized weapon just to Yankee Doodle them, the armalite. Yes, the secret side element that I think many of you fear is that you might ease up on some of your criticism of them but some of that is good and as for the est, there are more of us than them so we’re not gonna move, they will.
So let me preface this by saying my response is likely to be wildly anticlimactic.

It's rare to get a response like you've given, and my second preface is I appreciate it, regardless of how much I may disagree on certain particulars. And these particulars may not seem like much, but they're important, right? So, onwards.

A lot of your clarifications are important and useful. My main points of concern are mainly how you've acted to others in this thread, yeah? Not just me, though the same behaviour covers your responses to me. The whole language about being squeamish, about being weak. It's not great, right? To break this down logically, it doesn't make sense to antagonise people who could see your point (even if they consider you naive - I do to an extent, but more on that later) just because they don't immediately want to go along with your suggestions. That's partially what I ended up going around the roundabout with El_Machinae on (as they say as well, both of us at fault in that one) - because I'd already endured not only you going at me (beleive me when I say that's ain't a trigger), but you going at other people. To be very English for a second, that just isn't cricket.

I understand a range of conservative opinions, talking points, cultural positions in arguments, and so on. I have to, in order to cut through the amount of what I do online. But I understand why you see this in me, because yes, I'm not comfortable immersing myself in their language. I believe it corrupts. You say something ironically, or in common discourse for so long, you slip up. Like I've said repeatedly, use of alt-right and conservative catchphrases is a prejudice of mine. I own that, but I have many (many) good reasons for having this rule. That doesn't mean I can't be proven wrong, of course.

A lot of this stems from my own personal morals. To open up for a moment, I don't like any amount of dishonesty. Of letting people fight battles for me. And yet, ironically, that's what ends up happening even through I'm a straight white dude who literally players water polo. But online? I can argue in the space, at least, and so I do. There's no fear of me easing up on any criticism, because I don't believe in a duality of "conservative" or "not conservative". I judge people along various axes of beliefs, though perhaps judge is too strong a word. I try to understand. But the past half a decade has taught me there's risk in that - risk in what you're proposing. Because while you recogonise bad faith, you don't understand the impact that can have on this kind of action you're advocating more.

And as a baseline, you cannot compromise or otherwise insult any amount of marginalised demographic to promote it. You might consider it pragmatic, but I consider that a loss of heart.
 
I don't believe in a duality of "conservative" or "not conservative". I judge people along various axes of beliefs, though perhaps judge is too strong a word. I try to understand. But the past half a decade has taught me there's risk in that - risk in what you're proposing. Because while you recogonise bad faith, you don't understand the impact that can have on this kind of action you're advocating more.
Can you clarify what you mean by "recognizing bad faith"? An example maybe?
 
Which party isn't constantly claiming escalation? Doesn't seem like I'm the one with "bad faith" issues in this context.

Well, logically, the party claiming escalation would be the one that's not in power and suffering the current escalation. That's in comparison to the idea of maintaining the status quo that was created by the other party.

I'm not sure you are working with me on the concept of 'escalation'. Democrats changed some rules, Republicans called foul, but then kept those rules once they were in power.

That's not escalation. Hypocrisy, maybe, but the understandable kind.

And then they escalated. Republicans get the blame for escalation, because they're doing it right now. You just don't care. Tristan thinks Kavanaugh was 'just desserts', but it wasn't. It was a deliberate degradation of the status quo in order to seize power. Sotomayor and Kagan had super-majority confirmations.

What's the end-game of willfully degrading democracy?
 
Last edited:
A lot of this stems from my own personal morals. To open up for a moment, I don't like any amount of dishonesty. Of letting people fight battles for me. And yet, ironically, that's what ends up happening even through I'm a straight white dude who literally players water polo. But online? I can argue in the space, at least, and so I do. There's no fear of me easing up on any criticism, because I don't believe in a duality of "conservative" or "not conservative". I judge people along various axes of beliefs, though perhaps judge is too strong a word. I try to understand. But the past half a decade has taught me there's risk in that - risk in what you're proposing. Because while you recogonise bad faith, you don't understand the impact that can have on this kind of action you're advocating more.

And as a baseline, you cannot compromise or otherwise insult any amount of marginalised demographic to promote it. You might consider it pragmatic, but I consider that a loss of heart.

Speaking as another one who does not like dishonesty, you are going to have trouble holding up to an aim of not compromising on avoiding insult to any amount of marginalized demographic. These marginalized demographics (as defined by identity politics...) are often at odds with each other. And the leaders of the campaigns fought in the name of these marginalized are often using them as excuses to rise and create their own victims to be marginalized. If/when they succeed, they become the new power and create new marginalized...

There is a non-insignificant portion of "conservative" groups who have their reasons to feel marginalized, and play the very same identity politics game that "liberal" groups are entrapped in. If you truly delve into understand why people fight over issues you'll have to face that. What is called progress, social change really, advances by destroying the status quo riding over the objections of some groups. You can say "they had it coming", but then you're not fighting for all the marginalized, you're eventually find yourself fighting for the new triumphant group against the fallen faction that then becomes the new become "marginalized". Or you will have to constantly switch alliances to be with the underdogs, whomever they are. Which is not really a productive way of leading one's life.

But to address your point more directly: politics is complicated, and sometimes to promote an improvement in life for one "marginalized group" the best idea is not to focus on supporting some self-proclaimed speakers of that group but to work towards improving society in general knowing that it will benefit that group also.
Focusing solely on aiding the noisy elements speaking for" that group can be cuter-productive, especially if it generates backlash of if those speakers do not have a well-though out strategy. Bad strategies and bad leaders should be criticized, denounced and shunned.
Look at the specifics of each case. Don't jump into any fight just because it seems virtuous, don't help push people along bad paths. And admit that neither you nor anyone can look carefully at every issue that comes up on each day's political focus. Better to do good on a few issues that help harm while jumping around with good intentions without knowing what is going on.
 
Last edited:
But I'll get right on picking myself up by my bootstraps and no longer being a cripple. At least I'll be able to throw a fist when the conservatives slash my benefits and put me out on the street for daring to be unhealthy. Maybe I'll be blessed with understanding them when it happens, too.
Nothing about bootstraps. You need to participate in your own defense, or you need others to defend you. It's that simple. And not even 'or', because the overall threat is probably larger than liberals can handle.

Look, I know that there are segments of society that are under assault. I'm watching us lose battles along various lines. We have three avenues of defense I can see: charisma, real power, and legal power. When you claim to have none of the three, that's fine. But I'm also not sure what you want me to do? Try harder on your behalf? Done! Might not be obvious, but I'm happy to do so.

But I still need your help. You being proud that you cannot comprehend conservatives doesn't help. Look what happened in this thread! Rampant mischaracterization of the allies, all the way to hostile interpretations of hygro's efforts. Pick a dimension where you can help. There's someone out there weaker than you that needs to to hold the line for them.
 
Nothing about bootstraps. You need to participate in your own defense, or you need others to defend you. It's that simple. And not even 'or', because the overall threat is probably larger than liberals can handle.

Look, I know that there are segments of society that are under assault. I'm watching us lose battles along various lines. We have three avenues of defense I can see: charisma, real power, and legal power. When you claim to have none of the three, that's fine. But I'm also not sure what you want me to do? Try harder on your behalf? Done! Might not be obvious, but I'm happy to do so.

But I still need your help. You being proud that you cannot comprehend conservatives doesn't help. Look what happened in this thread! Rampant mischaracterization of the allies, all the way to hostile interpretations of hygro's efforts. Pick a dimension where you can help. There's someone out there weaker than you that needs to to hold the line for them.

Why would I want you to do anything, and where do you get that I'm "proud" of anything?
 
Hygro specifically said that they understood people may not act in good faith, but said that wasn't a counterargument to what they were proposing. It's literally in the post I quoted.
Oh ok. I agree with Hygro. What's to disagree with? "I suspect they may have bad intentions" is all the more reason to tackle what they are arguing, no? "You're mean I won't play" is fine if you are playing a game w no consequences but that's not politics.
 
Why would I want you to do anything?
Because you're scared, and you know you need help. You need my help on every single issue that you care about. There are many issues that we care about where *we* outnumber *them*. And a few where we don't.

I need *your* help.
 
Because you're scared, and you know you need help. You need my help on every single issue that you care about. There are many issues that we care about where *we* outnumber *them*. And a few where we don't.

I need *your* help.

Most of my effort is spent avoiding major roads so that I don't give in to a moment of courage. The only help I can offer you is reducing the population count you're burdened with saving. :lol:
 
When you go to the White House with an infrastructure plan to discuss and the President tells you to go away and that he won't work with you until you stop investigating him - which is literally part of your job - who is working in bad faith?

RussiaGate is a scam, the investigation showed no conspiracy

When you pick a Supreme Court nominee that is more moderate than your others, and then Mitch McConnell refuses to give him a hearing for 293 days - who is working in bad faith?

I agree with that, McConnell's slimy

When House Republicans in North Carolina tell the Democrats "Yeah, go to the 9/11 ceremonies, we won't pass anything" and then use that opportunity to pass legislation, who is working in bad faith?

Only 1 member said they were at a ceremony and there is evidence the Dems were told votes would be held that day. The jury is still out on that one.

I see a lot of "both sides operate in bad faith" but not a lot of actual proof and it irritates the living hell out of me that "both sides bad" is just treated as axiomatic.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC rigged the primaries to favor her and somebody blew the whistle on their corruption. So Clinton and the Dems accused Trump of conspiring with the Russians and sent their BS from a political hack (Steele) to the FBI to get Obama's DoJ to spy on the Trump people. But thats ignored and Trump is the villain because the Dems got busted rigging an election. Its downright Machiavellian, rig an election, get caught doing it, and then accuse other people of rigging an election.
 
Berzerker sipping that Fox News sizzurp.

But also: Most everyone on CFC seems to support the Democrats that threaten the establishment, so, like, you don't really need to spend any time convincing us that the old guard's botching of the primaries was wack.
 
Actually it was Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate and Jimmy Dore who educated me about RussiaGate... Not Fox. But your non-rebuttal perfectly illustrates the problem with 'us & them', ignore facts, insult people and then accuse them of arguing in bad faith.
 
Most of my effort is spent avoiding major roads so that I don't give in to a moment of courage. The only help I can offer you is reducing the population count you're burdened with saving. :lol:

[Looks at my history of your posts that I've 'liked']
Nope, don't agree with your summary.
And nope, don't agree with your conclusion.

There are too many areas where I need your help
 
Speaking as another one who does not like dishonesty, you are going to have trouble holding up to an aim of not compromising on avoiding insult to any amount of marginalized demographic. These marginalized demographics (as defined by identity politics...) are often at odds with each other. And the leaders of the campaigns fought in the name of these marginalized are often using them as excuses to rise and create their own victims to be marginalized. If/when they succeed, they become the new power and create new marginalized...

There is a non-insignificant portion of "conservative" groups who have their reasons to feel marginalized, and play the very same identity politics game that "liberal" groups are entrapped in. If you truly delve into understand why people fight over issues you'll have to face that. What is called progress, social change really, advances by destroying the status quo riding over the objections of some groups. You can say "they had it coming", but then you're not fighting for all the marginalized, you're eventually find yourself fighting for the new triumphant group against the fallen faction that then becomes the new become "marginalized". Or you will have to constantly switch alliances to be with the underdogs, whomever they are. Which is not really a productive way of leading one's life.

But to address your point more directly: politics is complicated, and sometimes to promote an improvement in life for one "marginalized group" the best idea is not to focus on supporting some self-proclaimed speakers of that group but to work towards improving society in general knowing that it will benefit that group also.
Focusing solely on aiding the noisy elements speaking for" that group can be cuter-productive, especially if it generates backlash of if those speakers do not have a well-though out strategy. Bad strategies and bad leaders should be criticized, denounced and shunned.
Look at the specifics of each case. Don't jump into any fight just because it seems virtuous, don't help push people along bad paths. And admit that neither you nor anyone can look carefully at every issue that comes up on each day's political focus. Better to do good on a few issues that help harm while jumping around with good intentions without knowing what is going on.
You're making a position I never made, and also invoking the dreaded phrase of "identity politics".

By reducing any complaint about marginalisation to the "identity politics game", I feel that I can't take this seriously as any form of critique. You don't understand marginalisation - you're inventing some kind of fictional future where the role of "marginalised" and "oppressor" are magically swapped. We're not in that future, it's not a realistic problem anyone here has to deal with. You've wandered into a thread about leftist activism and you're making it about the conservative interpretation of something called "identity politics".

My use of marginalised in this context was relevant to this specific thread, and to Hygro's words used when people disagree with their approach. We have marginalised posters here in OT, in CFC. They exist, now. Without inventing some future where some other demographic becomes marginalised. But the real highlight here is when you suggest that I would therefore have to always fight for the "underdog" (read as: marginalised demographic), but immediately dismiss that as an unproductive way of "leading one's life".

That's more than my prejudice against Hygro for using a catchphrase I detest. You're flat-out saying that spending my life defending marginalised folk from attacks by others isn't a productive life to lead. That's your opinion, but don't presume what is or isn't a productive use of my time, thanks ;)

Oh ok. I agree with Hygro. What's to disagree with? "I suspect they may have bad intentions" is all the more reason to tackle what they are arguing, no? "You're mean I won't play" is fine if you are playing a game w no consequences but that's not politics.
I literally answered this as well. You agree with Hygro, I responded to Hygro with my answer. You then questioned what I meant by bad faith instead of going from what I said in response.
 
Yours does not seem to be "leftist activism". If you're complaining about the terms used, then I get to complain too over the appropriation of that term. Leftism has been about achieving more equality among people in terms of social ("political" if you will) power. It has always been universalist. Everything else flows from that: economic equality, a more civil society, progress rather than wars and destructive conflicts. It still requires rules, it still requires constant political fights. But you cannot hope to achieve much by having people separated into small separate groups with their own particularist agenda fighting it out. That is want I mean by unproductive. Marginal stuff is marginal because it does not matter to most people. You can make the case for, say, universal toleration of what does no harm to others, and "fight marginalization" in that way. That was what enabled recent social changes that reduced some kinds of marginalization. But when you cross (and too many times it is crossed) the line from demanding toleration to demanding active support, you'll clash with the interests of other, large groups. Or rather, their right to have a lack of interest. Be realistic, respect other people: no one can be forced to coddle other random people just because they yell "I feel marginalized". It is hard enough to keep operative the old social norms of being obliged to care for family and friends already. No one can be forced to swallow demands on their own private behavior or personal beliefs because others complain of "hurt feelings".

I see really marginalized groups, but I also see a lot of posturing, of attempts at domination by small minorities with the justification that they are feeling oppressed. So you better define what is marginalization/repression, and is not. Because one can become a justification for the other. And you can't dismiss that fact just by claiming that it is a "conservative interpretation".

Bottom line is, you cannot force other people to become interested into what for them is a marginal concern. You cannot forge alliances and achieve social change with narrow agendas, and that applies also to that bunk people call "intersectionality" there. Alliances of narrow agendas are a political fiction, they do not produce stable results. Not every cause is realistic, not every cause is worth fighting for. But it is your life indeed, you are free to spend it however you see fit.
 
Yours does not seem to be "leftist activism". If you're complaining about the terms used, then I get to complain too over the appropriation of that term. Leftism has been about achieving more equality among people in terms of social ("political" if you will) power. It has always been universalist. Everything else flows from that: economic equality, a more civil society, progress rather than wars and destructive conflicts. It still requires rules, it still requires constant political fights. But you cannot hope to achieve much by having people separated into small separate groups with their own particularist agenda fighting it out. That is want I mean by unproductive. Marginal stuff is marginal because it does not matter to most people. You can make the case for, say, universal toleration of what does no harm to others, and "fight marginalization" in that way. That was what enabled recent social changes that reduced some kinds of marginalization. But when you cross (and too many times it is crossed) the line from demanding toleration to demanding active support, you'll clash with the interests of other, large groups. Or rather, their right to have a lack of interest. Be realistic, respect other people: no one can be forced to coddle other random people just because they yell "I feel marginalized". It is hard enough to keep operative the old social norms of being obliged to care for family and friends already. No one can be forced to swallow demands on their own private behavior or personal beliefs because others complain of "hurt feelings".

I see really marginalized groups, but I also see a lot of posturing, of attempts at domination by small minorities with the justification that they are feeling oppressed. So you better define what is marginalization/repression, and is not. Because one can become a justification for the other. And you can't dismiss that fact just by claiming that it is a "conservative interpretation".

Bottom line is, you cannot force other people to become interested into what for them is a marginal concern. You cannot forge alliances and achieve social change with narrow agendas, and that applies also to that bunk people call "intersectionality" there. Alliances of narrow agendas are a political fiction, they do not produce stable results. Not every cause is realistic, not every cause is worth fighting for. But it is your life indeed, you are free to spend it however you see fit.

Who are the correct universalist leftists and what have they achieved recently?

Who gets to decide when toleration becomes active support and so a group crosses from marginalized to privileged?

(I feel like this is at risk of becoming equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome)
 
I think that it ultimately becomes obvious and that group loses support, and loses the fight.

As for universalist leftists, I know who they were in my own country. They achieved a lot back in the 1970s: universal health care and a massive reduction in epidemics and childhood mortality, social security, good labour laws, public ownership of the natural monopolies and of finance, eradication of slums, etc. They achieved this for everyone. And much of this has been rolled back in recent years... I have my reasons to often be angry at contemporary politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom