"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Gorbles]

Advertisers seek to create suffering to create artifical need so people spend more money. Think of the fashion industry as a prime example.

Sure, but that's advertising exploiting short-term feelings; a (dark) variant on FOMO, as it were. It's not "unhappy people compulsively spend the most money", because a) how do we even measure unhappiness and b) a compulsion infers the cause is singular; personal. It's not a compulsion if someone is manipulating you into doing it. That's why we call it manipulation.

Unhappy people are taught that money buys happiness, because we all are. You can't skip the middle step and equate being unhappy with spending, without studying the whole causal chain.

 

[AmazonQueen]

A healthier, smarter, more quick-witted populace certainly may lead to innovation and growth long term but almost no one in power seems to gaf about the timeline beyond their next quarter or term.

Because the shareholders and voters don't think long term.

 

[Samson]

Cancer is a huge economic driver.

That is the broken windows fallacy. It may drive people to spend money, but in a non-productive way compared to preventing the cancer.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think everyone agrees on that. The major problem is that the wrong things are being measured. Or, more clearly, they're being measured and then misapplied as a useful statistic. There are a subset of times when the Broken Window Fallacy isn't a fallacy, but it usually doesn't involve kids with cancer.

 

[Narz]

b) a compulsion infers the cause is singular; personal. It's not a compulsion if someone is manipulating you into doing it. That's why we call it manipulation.

I've never heard that definition. There's really no such thing a singular, personal cause. Take alcoholism, it's biochemical, it's cultural, it's social, it's ancestral (both from genetics and upbringing).

 

[Gorbles]

I've never heard that definition. There's really no such thing a singular, personal cause. Take alcoholism, it's biochemical, it's cultural, it's social, it's ancestral (both from genetics and upbringing).

To be fair, on Googling it, it seems to support both. i.e. you can be made to do something (under compulsion, basically reads as the same as under duress), but also an irresistable urge to act in a certain way. Two pretty separate things, under the same word.

I lean towards the latter in my usage, mainly because we have other words that cover the former meaning (duress, manipulation, etc). Doesn't mean either interpretation is wrong, just explaining how I'm more familiar with it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Visiting the third world you definitely get a stronger sense of connection to your labor, even your adventures which take more work are that much more rewarding. So I buy that.

But virtually none of the work I’ve ever done, and my jobs have been mostly quite lowly with preordained protocols, has felt like the rules are arbitrary.

A couple notable exceptions, but mostly not. It’s not hard to value systematized work so that it can measured and copied, or even have some pride in dare I say “best practices”.

It's certainly true that the arbitrariness of the rules varies from organisation to organisation, and will vary depending on the nature of the work. What I'm driving at is that, to most workers, the rules may as well be arbitrary. They would have to follow them in any case; it would not matter if they though the rules inefficient or counter-productive, because nobody would think of asking them, still less of acting upon their opinions. There may be a perfectly clear, reasonable and practical reason why the work is done at this time, but from the subjective position of the worker, this is secondary to the fact that somebody is telling them to do it. We might say that it is why the work is done, but not why they do the work.

The source of disconnection from the work is not that the work is mismanaged but that it is managed; not that the worker is being directed poorly, but that his work is subject to external direction in the first place, that he is reduced to little more than a tool in somebody else's hands. Humans weren't built to live like that, and for the first four hundred thousand years of existence, we didn't. It's hard to imagine that we could simply take a shift that dramatic in our stride, without even a murmur of psychological distress.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It's certainly true that the arbitrariness of the rules varies from organisation to organisation, and will vary depending on the nature of the work. What I'm driving at is that, to most workers, the rules may as well be arbitrary. They would have to follow them in any case; it would not matter if they though the rules inefficient or counter-productive, because nobody would think of asking them, still less of acting upon their opinions. There may be a perfectly clear, reasonable and practical reason why the work is done at this time, but from the subjective position of the worker, this is secondary to the fact that somebody is telling them to do it. We might say that it is why the work is done, but not why they do the work.

The source of disconnection from the work is not that the work is mismanaged but that it is managed; not that the worker is being directed poorly, but that his work is subject to external direction in the first place, that he is reduced to little more than a tool in somebody else's hands. Humans weren't built to live like that, and for the first four hundred thousand years of existence, we didn't. It's hard to imagine that we could simply take a shift that dramatic in our stride, without even a murmur of psychological distress.

Effectively people were reduced from being farmers (however small-scale) to farmhands, from artisans and craftsmen to factory hands. Officework, call centre work, shop work they still apply those same 19th century principles to how we work to today.

 

[Kaitzilla]

After watching that Washington Post drama for a whole week, I looked up progressive infighting and found this.

How Meltdowns Brought Progressive Groups to a Standstill (theintercept.com)

That the institute has spent the course of the Biden administration paralyzed makes it typical of not just the abortion rights community — Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other reproductive health organizations had similarly been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations, most often breaking down along staff-versus-management lines.
It’s also true of the progressive advocacy space across the board, which has, more or less, effectively ceased to function.
The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.

In fact, it’s hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn’t been in tumult, or isn’t currently in tumult...

Great googily moogly.

 

[Rg339]

Good article. Not particularly surprising. Haven’t most people, even those on the left, seen this coming from a mile away?

 

[Gorbles]

I mean, many right-wing groups have seen similar turmoil (delicious example: Unite the Right), so I'm not sure how indicative it is of anything except the human condition.

 

[Farm Boy]

Good article. Not particularly surprising. Haven’t most people, even those on the left, seen this coming from a mile away?

?

Spoiler :

Doesn't seem super de dooper new.

 

[Rg339]

And yet, I see no similar article presented that shows a similar pattern and level of organizational dysfunction amongst right-wing advocacy groups. Just one example.

I would expect reflexive defenses of left-wing advocacy groups from left wingers, but the article indicates compellingly a pretty widespread problem.

The big thing to me is a disparity in the level of excoriation people receive when they go against peer opinion. I often see and hear quotes like this from leftists, but I much less see and hear similar things from those on the right

“A lot of staff that work for me, they expect the organization to be all the things: a movement, OK, get out the vote, OK, healing, OK, take care of you when you’re sick, OK. It’s all the things,” said one executive director. “Can you get your love and healing at home, please? But I can’t say that, they would crucify me.”

“You hesitate before you question a belief that is ascendant among your peer group,”

“I’m now at a point where the first thing I wonder about a job applicant is, ‘How likely is this person to blow up my organization from the inside?’”

“Progressive leaders cannot do anything but fight inside the orgs, thereby rendering the orgs completely toothless for the external battles in play. … Everyone is scared, and fear creates the inaction that the right wing needs to succeed in cementing a deeply unpopular agenda.”

Here’s the largest woah, not good moment in the article(full disclosure: I supported Sanders in the past two primaries)

During the 2020 presidential campaign, as entry-level staffers for Sanders repeatedly agitated over internal dynamics, despite having already formed a staff union, the senator issued a directive to his campaign leadership: “Stop hiring activists.” Instead, Sanders implored, according to multiple campaign sources, the campaign should focus on bringing on people interested first and foremost in doing the job they’re hired to do.

 

[Angst]

i'm not sure whether the fear is real or supposed, but i do believe the left has a tendency to cannibalize itself and/or splinter over tenets (many people on this forum disagree with me)

imo, and it's just my opinion:

a big problem for much of the left is that they want to change the status quo of capitalism, and while the concrete policies can overlap to a surprising degree, the thing is that the end goal differs a lot depending on ideology. from a complete revolutionary restructuring towards something else, or centre-seeking mitigation of affairs. in both of these regards, the left would generally support ie a higher minimum wage, but some parts think policies like these (even so numerous they would account for widespread change) as enough, while other parts think more fundamental restructuring is ideal. the thing is that as things are, any radical change is hard enough to do, and disagreements upon (quite fundamentally different) endgoals can ruin left organization sometimes

all while segments of the right can generally agree on certain things. the extreme right has a similar effective endgoal structure of economy as the more centre right (hierarchized wealth distribution and often racist policies) and often doesn't mind their endgoals not being carried out when they consider certain outcomes to be what they are going for anyways, even if some structures prefer an outright fascist economy, depending on how they envision that would look like

as subgroups of the extreme right, the alt right doesn't see much cannibalization. ecofascists work side by side with climate-denying proponents of industry under fascism. both just generally want harshly hierarchized wealth and white supremacy, and the other issues can be sorted out if it would ever come to that.

the centre right naturally hates extreme right views per se, but that's not really the point (also, centre right likes a bunch of extreme right economic policies; it's the degree of extreme right ethnostate values they don't like)

again many people here on cfc disagree with me, and the thing is, i want to be wrong.

if i'm not wrong, i've long pondered as to why this is the case. something that's factual is that the extreme right has near universally, in the west, lost mainstream appeal after the humanistic blunders around world war 2. (it's often their end goal, so rightfully lost appeal, but still.) they have to cooperate to succeed and influence the centre. it's not difficult either because of certain political structures (the centre has many problematic aspects here). the left is not mainstream but is still more acceptable as propositions outside the us. even inside the us, many "radical" leftist beliefs are majority views. so maybe the slight more degree of power has this stuff happen? the centre while being in power is constantly bickering over nuances, claiming differences to snatch voters, even with stark disapproval of any end to capitalism (shared endgoal of preservation), so more public approval and support => more influence => more influence to distribute => internal strife maybe checks out. we see it in the centre with reps and dems in the us; it could be seen as the centre being in power, and as such they cannibalize themselves a lot, instead of being an actual united entity of many core beliefs. that guy wants a 2% tax increase!? he's mad! i'm a much better politician, use his votes for me instead

and mind you, if this is a function, i have to reiterate that the left is by no means in power, it's a hilarious notion. i'm just saying that relative to conceptions of ethnostate as a preference, it has relatively more public approval. this function still holds true even if there are deep problematic roots in the centre

and if i'm wrong, i'd be pleased.

 

[Farm Boy]

2% tax increase. On what? Every time they raise taxes in this state, they price people out of the southern tip and into neighboring states. Which suits upstate just fine, they didn't want to provide government down there anyhow. Double win for those left.

 

[Angst]

2% tax increase. On what? Every time they raise taxes in this state, they price people out of the southern tip and into neighboring states. Which suits upstate just fine, they didn't want to provide government down there anyhow. Double win for those left.

whether business loves out over a 2% tax increase is its own discussion; the point was more that if we were to call the left's behavior cannibalization - splintering over differences that don't matter and/or fighting over the same base instead of looking beyond that - i think the centre does it too

 

[Farm Boy]

Business? I'm talking food tax rates, licenses to travel on roads when roads are the only travel, and housing. That's not just business, it's people trying to eat and live. I'm guessing leftists are just trying to figure out who they can eat for fun and profit. Not really unique, no. The center and right do too. But the phrasing is weird. Take AOC, she's visible and quite "left" and held out as a sort of democratic cannibalizer. Which confuses me. She just looks like somebody good with media representing a 100 percent urban district with 20 percent over the median national household income. <shrugs>

 

[Angst]

Business? I'm talking food tax rates, licenses to travel on roads when roads are the only travel, and housing. That's not just business, it's people trying to eat and live. I'm guessing leftists are just trying to figure out who they can eat for fun and profit. Not really unique, no. The center and right do too. But the phrasing is weird. Take AOC, she's visible and quite "left" and held out as a sort of democratic cannibalizer. Which confuses me. She just looks like somebody good with media representing a 100 percent urban district with 20 percent over the median national household income. <shrugs>

i don't think you're at all answering what i'm talking about. rather interested in using it as a springboard to grumble about urbanites or something. which is like fine but it doesn't really have any obvious connection to what i'm talking about for me, i don't really have anything to say to it

to be very clear: it's fine. i just wanted to say i'm sorry if i don't say much further to it

 

[Farm Boy]

By saying they're like me? Well, fine. I grumble about me too.

I don't think they're much different. Like as people. But if I compare online interactions and in person interactions with left-leaners(that would be considered such, I think, on CFC) with in person interactions with people that a right-leaners(that would be considered such, I think, on CFC) then the right leaners do tend to be more comfortable with "sausage-making" in some senses. But politics are secondary to religious folk, and the right leaners are more consistently religious. Now, it may be that the left leaners are just as religious, just that I'm a heretic, functionally. I'll consider it as a possibility, but I'm not sold sold on the idea.

It might be also that you nailed it when you said that it is more socially acceptable to be pants-on-head leftist than it is to be pants-on-head rightist*. So we see louder stupider examples of one than the other in life, and the other mostly on the news? I don't know about that either.

*American. They did start a land war of conquest in Europe.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Take AOC, she's visible and quite "left" and held out as a sort of democratic cannibalizer. Which confuses me. She just looks like somebody good with media representing a 100 percent urban district with 20 percent over the median national household income. <shrugs>

She also likes to lecture on the failings of capitalism, all the whilst doing a makeup tutorial live video stream paid and hosted by Vogue.