"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Narz]

Lol gotta be hard not to take advantage of free money for nothing tho

 

[Modder_Mode]

Lol gotta be hard not to take advantage of free money for nothing tho

I agree. I dont blame her either and I encourage her to make the most of her enterprise and brand, it's her mixed messaging that's the problem.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if she's trying to bring down capitalism, which I somehow doubt, I wonder how much her constituency realizes they're solidly in the "to fix downward" column.

 

[Rg339]

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.

I think there’s more fear amongst leftists, too. Leftists strongly value anti-racism(and other anti-Xphobia, anti-Xisms). How those values are practically applied to interactions with world often causes practical difficulties.

What’s considered a racist idea, or a racist structure? An argument can be made that any sort of power structure, given the disproportionate disadvantages minority communities face, supports racist outcomes. Therefore, any hierarchal structure gets the green light to come under scrutiny.

With individuals, any comment that could be perceived as prejudiced in some way means the individual is subject to claims they are racist. This will effect their moral authority, possibly career prospects negatively.

What’s impactful with that is that there is no real way to falsify a claim of prejudice. Nobody knows what’s in another’s head. People are aware that it is near impossible to falsify the claim, and from that, a culture of proving anti-racist bonafides emerges so that the individual is less likely to personally face a claim of prejudice. The personal incentives are there(if you’re part of a group that strongly values anti-prejudice) to constantly harangue even your own friends and allies to avoid the potential similar harrying will one day come against you.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, if she's trying to bring down capitalism, which I somehow doubt

It's kinda like horseshoe theory, naive libs and far-right psychos both agree AOC is trying to bring down capitalism

I wonder how much her constituency realizes they're solidly in the "to fix downward" column.

Of course, the abolition of capitalism can't happen without expropriating the filthy elites who make...*checks notes* $60,000/year.

I agree. I dont blame her either and I encourage her to make the most of her enterprise and brand, it's her mixed messaging that's the problem.

don't make me tap the sign.

Spoiler :

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course, the abolition of capitalism can't happen without expropriating the filthy elites who make...*checks notes* $60,000/year.

Yea. That's a solid "to adjust downward." Household income. Not single earner.

It's kinda like horseshoe theory, naive libs and far-right psychos both agree AOC is trying to bring down capitalism

fair 'nuff.

I think there’s more fear amongst leftists, too. Leftists strongly value anti-racism(and other anti-Xphobia, anti-Xisms). How those values are practically applied to interactions with world often causes practical difficulties.

What’s considered a racist idea, or a racist structure?

It's difficult!

 

[Ajidica]

It's kinda like horseshoe theory, naive libs and far-right psychos both agree AOC is trying to bring down capitalism

But hasn't AOC explicitly position herself as 'trying to bring down capitalism'? I thought she pretty clearly positioned herself as a democratic socialist, arguably to the left of Sanders who frequently sounds more like a social democrat than anything else.

 

[Lexicus]

But hasn't AOC explicitly position herself as 'trying to bring down capitalism'? I thought she pretty clearly positioned herself as a democratic socialist, arguably to the left of Sanders who frequently sounds more like a social democrat than anything else.

AOC is a naive lib

I'm also not sure I'd say she positions herself as trying to "bring down capitalism," her whole spiel is that socialism means, you know, having firefighters and stuff and maybe higher top marginal tax rates.

 

[AmazonQueen]

But hasn't AOC explicitly position herself as 'trying to bring down capitalism'? I thought she pretty clearly positioned herself as a democratic socialist, arguably to the left of Sanders who frequently sounds more like a social democrat than anything else.

AOC on capitalism, "So to me, capitalism, at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost."
Hard to justify being in favour of capitalism if thats how its defined.

 

[Angst]

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.

maybe i just had a hard time understanding your point in particular, again, i'm not the smartest person in the world. my musings about it btw was exactly to try and figure out why humans differ when organizing as they do (if the sausage making thing is the correct word for it) when they're well both humans. that's me pointing to the "i don't think they're much different. like as people." so presuming they're, as both humans, both somewhat similar in methods of projecting power, instead i try to look at what makes them differ here. you could look at it as pure expression of culture, but i do like to try and look as to behavior within practice of power. so if they act different (again, what i believe, and you may not), what causes this? maybe it's acceptance of visibility, as to the potential nailing of it i might have done. the extreme right very much organize knowing they are *not* allowed at all in nondark/non-site-that-must-not-be-named/etc web society. edit: although ofc the allowance of visibility has changed recently.

but yea, last note on your experience of interactions (or rather, me talking about my own experience of interactions). i have acquaintances in the arts where people are quite harshly believing things; and left and right simply differ in their interaction with each other, and interaction with the middle. so the personal/online divide isn't that present to me; but i *am* only speaking from experience (and from what i've read).

 

[Ajidica]

AOC is a naive lib

I'm also not sure I'd say she positions herself as trying to "bring down capitalism," her whole spiel is that socialism means, you know, having firefighters and stuff and maybe higher top marginal tax rates.

Is that really socialism though? If robust public services and high top marginal tax rates is socialism, than Eisenhower, deGaulle, and Churchill were all socialists - which frankly turns socialist into a meaningless term.

 

[Angst]

Is that really socialism though? If robust public services and high top marginal tax rates is socialism, than Eisenhower, deGaulle, and Churchill were all socialists - which frankly turns socialist into a meaningless term.

welcome to america

 

[Lexicus]

Is that really socialism though? If robust public services and high top marginal tax rates is socialism, than Eisenhower, deGaulle, and Churchill were all socialists - which frankly turns socialist into a meaningless term.

This is exactly my point. Most of the "socialist" movement in the US is just liberals who want to brand themselves as kinda-but-not-really outside the mainstream.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Is that really socialism though? If robust public services and high top marginal tax rates is socialism, than Eisenhower, deGaulle, and Churchill were all socialists - which frankly turns socialist into a meaningless term.

This is exactly my point. Most of the "socialist" movement in the US is just liberals who want to brand themselves as kinda-but-not-really outside the mainstream.

Seems to be the way the term is used in the US though.
If she was in the UK she'd be on the soft left of the Labour Party, in Europe she could even be a left-wing Christian Democrat. Only in the US is she talked about as if she was some sort of revolutionary.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, she "mavericks" around to make headlines, but she's going to support stuff that supports her district, which is solidly on the above-average camp. So yeah. I wouldn't expect much out of her other than occasionally pissing off people trying to fund out-district infrastructure. You know, like a House Rep.

 

[bernie14]

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.

So when a little hunter gatherer toddler is directed to place the veggies in a pot instead of the latrine, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Who's psychological distress are you talking about?

 

[Berzerker]

AOC and the progressive Democrats could have leveraged a vote on Medicare for all or a public option when Nancy was running for Speaker, instead they bent the knee to the billionaire class bribing her. They know who runs the country and they're apparently okay with it.

 

[Arwon]

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.

United States presidential candidate campaigns are pretty much their own uniquely messed up thing, specific to one country's broken electoral system. They shouldn't be taken as representative of how normal political parties operate, much less normal NGOs.

 

[Arwon]

AOC on capitalism, "So to me, capitalism, at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost."
Hard to justify being in favour of capitalism if thats how its defined.

That definition sounds designed to posit more regulated forms of market economy as not capitalist.

 

[Samson]

That definition sounds designed to posit more regulated forms of market economy as not capitalist.

Yeah, the Bernie Sanders definition of socialism, which is capitalism with a bit more bread and circuses. I am not convinced it is a good marketing strategy, but they need something.