I want to draw attention to the elephant in the room.
Leading up to the election, and perhaps even more prominently now, we’ve been seeing droves of people on the internet displaying a series of traits in common.
- Claiming to be leftists
- Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
- Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
- Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
- Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
When you look at an aerial view of these behaviors in conjunction with one another, what they’re accomplishing is pretty plain to see, in my opinion. It’s a way of utilizing the moral scrupulousness of the left to cut our teeth out politically. We get so caught up in giving these arguments the benefit of the doubt and of making sure people who claim to be leftists have a platform that we’re missing ideological parasites in our midst.
This is not a good-faith discourse. This is not friendly disagreement. This is, largely, not even internal disagreement. It is infiltration, and it’s extremely effective.
Before attacking this argument as lacking proof, just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?
By refusing to ever consider that those who do nothing with their time in our spaces but try to drive a wedge between us, to take away our power and make us feel helpless and hopeless, we’re giving them exactly that vector. I am telling you, they are using it.
We need to stop letting them. We need to see it for what it is, get the word out, and remember, as the political left, how to use the tools that we have to change society. It starts with us between one another. It starts with what we do in the spaces that we inhabit. They know this, and it’s why they’re targeting us here.
Stop being an easy target. Stop feeding the cuckoo.
You must log in or register to comment.
I 100% agree with this post. I do believe many of these attackers are sincere, but that it’s time to recognize it doesn’t matter and the end effect is the same as if they had acted in bad faith.
They give permission to be cynical to the less informed who might otherwise feel guilt to support one candidate or the other. They create an argument that no one needs to pick a side, which a lot of people take comfort in because our politics are so divisive and polarizing that many don’t want to wade into them if they can stay above the fray.
The message in the 2024 election should have been “Biden has been great, if you think he was bad you don’t realize what he’s had to deal with caused by Trump and the pandemic and the not-entirely real Democratic majority in the Senate which includes two turn-coats. His only issue is he’s old so let’s go with Harris.” That’s all. But that kind of messaging was never possible because most of the left wanted to always frame things by starting with their laundry-list of all the things they didn’t like about Biden to prove their independent thinker bona-fides, and then circle around and say “BUT here’s the thing-” which is lousy messaging.
Even today, when it’s clear Biden fixed the economy and passed a ton of great legislation we can’t frame the discussion as “Biden was great and now Trump has ruined the economy and defunded all these programs that were working” because people still want to start by crapping on the Democrats and sabotaging their own case. It’s a great plan if the goal is to have the left perform weaker than they should have in all future debates and elections.
- Claiming to be leftists
- Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
- Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
- Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
Except for the one example you listed that I omitted here, you’ve just described, like, at least 1/3 of Lemmy, maybe more.
The obvious ones I blocked long ago. There were some I didn’t block, but a good chunk of those up and disappeared right after the election in November, so that was not suspicious at all.
Frankly, I’m just about done with anything “political” on social media and am just going to start employing keyword filters. I’ll just have to find some other void to shout into when I need an outlet lol.
Yep. It’s a damn mess.
I don’t claim to know how to make them be honest about their motivations or, in the case of those few who are genuinely being taken in by this garbage, wake the hell up and realize what they’re throwing away. But I know that having the idea out there in the open in a digestible way can at least help some people get a better view of what’s going on. Maybe they’ll follow suit and block some of the worst ones. Maybe they’ll rely less on social media for their perspectives on the world and realize that Lemmy isn’t the exception to its toxicity just because it’s open source.
We need to be more aware of them than we have been, though, because it’s getting worse.
I just don’t know a good way to deal with that, TBH. I wish I did.
how to make them be honest about their motivations
It’s tough. If I get a funny feeling about an account and think they might be a concern troll (I think that’s the term that applies here; if not, someone please correct me. I think “false ally” is a sub-class of that, but I’m shooting from the hip here),
I’ll typically look back through their history, try to put things in context, and get a feel from there. The ones I blocked were pretty much all one-trick ponies, so that was easy (though tedious as it took a while “vetting” each one).
The problem there is, yes, you’ve identified that person. But everyone else needs to do the same legwork and come to the same conclusion. You can’t just put up a sign that says “Troll” lol. Depending on the community/instance, you could report them, but that often puts mods in a sticky situation because they usually don’t want to suppress anyone’s viewpoint as long as it’s not violating any rules.
or, in the case of those few who are genuinely being taken in by this garbage
That’s even tougher. First, you have to figure out if they’re the troll or the one who was trolled (troll-ee lol?) . And one, very rightfully, can’t /shouldn’t just start calling people trolls or shills. For one, they might be the troll-ee; going out of the gate with name-calling and accusations is definitely not the way to convince them to re-evaluate their views. For another, it just sets a bad tone and gives the impression that “everyone who disagrees with me is a troll”.
But sometimes they are. What do you do then?
Wish I had an answer that didn’t involve writing multiple theses on a number of topics as they try to sealion me into submission lol.
So, everyone actually doesn’t have to do the same legwork. If most of the posters in a community block someone, that person won’t be able to post in most of the threads in that community and won’t get the engagement they’re looking for.
Whether they’re trolls or whether they’re useful idiots, I say block them. Not only that, actively encourage others to do the same. If we take to blocking these people on sight the moment they start spouting this bullshit, they very quickly will see threads full of “# additional responses” that they can’t actually see or respond to.
In some cases it might actually be worth reporting them, too. A lot of them go well beyond the rules of the communities they’re engaging with, but I’ve also seen at least one instance where a very prominent cuckoo-poster got chased off the instance by the staff. He was basically told to knock it off or leave and he chose the latter. Good riddance.
Don’t the people you block still see your posts?
I’m under the impression that they can’t reply to them directly.
They can still reply, you just won’t see them or get a notification.
So there is a bit of FOMO to get over when blocking, but it’s not too bad. Kind of like realizing you have no control over what people say behind your back. I’m just like, “If I cared what they had to say, I wouldn’t have blocked them in the first place”
Oh. Welp. At least it reduces their engagement.
This is just Lemmy and the whole “leftist” influencer sphere (read: people who watch Hasan Piker and take him seriously).
I completely agree with everything you mention here but you’re going to make a lot of Lemmies very mad.
They aren’t open to real discourse and will literally ally with Republicans if it means they can take down Democrats.
David Pacman?
I’m not sure about that. But we will absolutely vote third, if they offer a platform that doesn’t vote status quo or having no view record, advance a platform that offers us something tangible. If they betray us, we remember.
I think that leftists generally have a hard time calling out people who argue in bad faith
We should genuinely be banning all tankies and accelerationists on sight. Allowing them to poison the debate to the extent they do really is our greatest flaw and the only real “leftist infighting” I’ve ever really come across.
Pretty sure leftist infighting is just a tankie dogwhistle at this point.
the only real “leftist infighting” I’ve ever really come across.
gestures wildly at the thread we’re in
I don’t think it’s just tankies doing it!
No. They’re all tankies or okay with tankies, which is more or less being a tankie. I recognize some of these users and many of them literally don’t believe in democracy and do stuff like defend the USSR etc. No leftist infighting here as usual, just people trying to push us to support their shitty little military regimes.
that has been my thought for years now, i feel like basically all the annoying and divisive things you see are just outright astroturfing
Stupid thing is that it’s the humanity and empathy of the left that is both the draw and the weakness of the movement.
Conservatives can come into leftist discourse spaces and either pose as the extreme leftists you describe, or even just the more reasonable end of the conservatives (non facist/maga types, rare as they are any more) an they’ll be engaged with in good faith. Since they’re ultimately not there for a proper discussion though it results in nothing more than creating chaos and arguments
Liberal/leftists who walk into conservative spaces are greeted with scorn and derision, treated as lunatics from the start not worth listening to. Since the left would generally be coming in with honest intent though at best they waste their time shouting into an established echo chamber, or worse get convinced that there’s a good middle ground to work towards.
Absolutely. Conservatives have, unfortunately, sailed straight past us on political effectiveness in recent years. We’re spending our time wringing our hands about doing the right thing and cajoling one another into doing the same. Unfortunately in a lot of cases modern leftism favors atomizing based on who a particular segment sees as having sufficient moral purity over solidarity. Meanwhile, conservatives don’t really care about much of anything other than maintaining a socially conservative status quo. They’ll even let people they hate pretend to be part of the club if they debase themselves enough to be politically useful. At the same time, they’ll viciously attack anyone who isn’t politically useful to them.
I’m not saying we ought to abandon our principles or start viciously attacking anyone who doesn’t toe the line of being politically useful, but we need to remember how to build coalitions and think strategically.
Since the left would generally be coming in with honest intent though at best they waste their time shouting into an established echo chamber, or worse get convinced that there’s a good middle ground to work towards.
I tried going to conservative spaces on Lemmy. The liberals wouldn’t allow any dialogue. Not the conservatives, the liberals.
liberals are conservatives. What we call conservatives are regressives.
I’d need some examples to get what you mean here. My experiences, both personal and simply observed, is that you can you can roughly split both conservatives and liberals into two sub-groups, although the distinction on the liberal side is a lot more fuzzy.
There’s the emotive/moralizing side that fight based on what they feel rather than any concrete justification. What’s right is decided simply by an assumption of how the world should work, either collaboratively or selfishly looking out for yourself only.
Then there are the logical logical arguments. On the conservative side these end up being a lot more in the form of ‘I am right, you need to prove otherwise’ while liberals (myself guilty of it as well) will go through these elaborate deliberations backing one point with another and somehow hoping to convince these people who have already decided they’re right of their error.
If you’ve ever tried beating your head into a brick wall you might recognize the feeling that last one, but it’s hardly an obstruction to dialogue, just a frustration of trying to engage rationally with largely irrational beings.
Many of these people legitimately hold these views. I have a friend who is absolutely a socialist who is still very much in favor of my country not aiding Ukraine as it would support “imperialism” in his eyes. My impression is that he and those like him are unwilling to ever compromise on any ideal they hold, even if it means not supporting any position whatsoever. Like you can debate him as much as you want about whether or not aiding Ukraine in any capacity is imperialism or not, but at the end of the day his main concern is not contributing to something he perceives as evil.
That said, I do agree that many of these people aren’t being genuine. I sometimes wonder if he’s secretly an accelerationist or something. Many people that use the same talking points as him online certainly are, rather than fascists trying to take us down from the inside.
I would argue that people who hold genuinely socialist views who laser focus on disempowering the left are nothing more than useful idiots for authoritarians and can safely be sorted into the same box as actual infiltrators and parasites. The intent of individuals isn’t nearly as important as combating the behavior that’s being exploited.
Watch out for the following five fallacies, and the cuckoo is easy to spot:
- oversimplification: false dichotomy, ignoring relevant factors
- genetic fallacy: instead of focusing on what is being said, the cuckoo always focuses on who says it
- straw man: cuckoos are really eager to put words into your mouth, and try to force you to defend claims you never did in first place
- ignore refutation: if you prove without a shadow of doubt that the cuckoo’s claim is wrong, they’ll ignore your refutation and still use it to back up even dumber claims
- ad nauseam: same claim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Then as you spot the cuckoo, the rest is easier - for example, IMO a sensible approach is to point out what the cuckoo is doing, to whoever might be reading your comment, while disengaging so you aren’t giving the cuckoo further time to sing.
That’s quickly becoming my approach. Point it out and then immediately block them and stop engaging. Once you block them, they can’t keep following you around spamming the same noise.
I think it’s a very common belief amongst forums like these to look to logical fallacies to root out dishonest behavior, in the hopes that it’ll provide a nice and easy way to deduce when someone’s a grifter. That you can tell if someone’s a liar – or for that matter, real – by applying them sufficiently.
The problem is, humans are fallible. They fuck up. Innocently. Constantly. It’s normal to make fallacious arguments, and doing so should not cause you to be automatically marked off as a robot, troll or spy. Some examples for your given fallacies:
- Oversimplification can also occur if someone is tired and does not want to go into rigorous academic detail for their argument. Alternatively, they may simply not know the detail to begin with.
- Genetic fallacy can occur due to simple human anger; if someone feels that their interlocutor has made bad-faith arguments frequently before, they’re inclined to ignore what that individual has to say outright, likely without even reading it. (This one has happened in this thread, several times)
- Strawmen happen all the time and extremely easily, because people will inevitably end up making assumptions about the position of others based on previous discussions they’ve had. If you spend enough time arguing a point and getting response
X, you’re going to start assuming that the person you’re talking to about that is implyingX, even if they haven’t said it and never intended to. - Ignoring refutation happens plenty simply when people get defensive. Admitting you’re wrong is hard, and it’s much preferable to instead change the topic or find some other way of pretending you were never disproven of anything. This is inherently a logical leap, and that’s why it leads to often dumber positions.
- With regard to ad nauseam: If someone finds a particular point very convincing and easy to understand for themselves, they may find it confusing as to why you don’t agree on it. This can lead to them repeatedly trying to explain it more thoroughly and in different words under the assumption that the way they said it was why you didn’t get it. I’ve done this a lot in my past.
With those examples out of the way, I just want to emphasize the fact that you should never pretend the presence of logical fallacies is a guarantee of bad faith, much less use it to dehumanize others. If we let ourselves do that, we’ll all tear each other apart under the mistaken assumption that we’re rooting out an evil that has no promise of even being present at all. To err is human.
Just to be clear:
I am not proposing to categorically label anyone using those five fallacies a cuckoo. I said that it’s easy to spot the cuckoo when you look for those fallacies. Because cuckoos rely on those fallacies to convey their “As A Leftist®, I say we should disempower ourselves!” discourse.
In that case, I contend that is is not easy to spot a cuckoo, and believing that is leaves one dangerously prone to overconfidence. So while I appreciate that you don’t see these fallacies as de facto proof of disingenuous behavior, I still feel that you’re running the risk of false positives.
Fallacies are useful for evaluating the validity of arguments and positions, not for evaluating people themselves. Solitary comments can never let you evaluate a whole person, because no whole person fits in a text box.
In that case, I contend […]
When answering your earlier comment, I wasn’t sure if you were
- Speaking on general grounds, without noticing that context made your comment imply that I said what I did not; OR
- Assuming=bullshitting that I said what I did not. e.g. that I’d not be taking into account that humans are fallible, or that I would be dehumanising others.
In doubt, I answered it with a simple clarification. However, that “in that case” confirms it’s #2, so I’ll readdress your earlier comment: cut off the crap.
Avoiding fallacies is not “academic rigour” dammit, it’s basic human decency. Decent human beings avoid bringing unnecessary harm to other human beings, and irrationalities (like fallacies) harm people. Doubly so in this context (politics), because that fallacy means people supporting people/entities/policies that should they not support. (Look at Gaza for a prime example of that. It’s literally people being killed because people give a thumbs up to an oversimplification, so a genocide looks like self-defence.)
“If someone is tired”, “simple human anger”, “when people get defensive” - people under those situations should not be discussing politics (mind the context!) on first place.
And no, it is neither logically nor morally acceptable to assume the others’ views, as you said under “strawmen”. It’s piece of shit behaviour of people who don’t mind blaming others for what they did not say or do not support.
Now, addressing this comment:
In that case, I contend that is is not easy to spot a cuckoo
In the context? Yes, it is. If someone is babbling “As A Leftist®, I say we should not fight back” and you smell those fallacies, the first thing you should look for is a brood parasite.
Fallacies are useful for evaluating the validity of arguments and positions, not for evaluating people themselves.
It’s useful for both.
While brainfarts happen, and people should be lenient towards small mistakes, someone who doesn’t even try to avoid fallacies is a harmful individual and should be treated as such.
I still feel that you’re running the risk of false positives.
Not a problem in the light of the proposed solution. (Point out and disengage)
Solitary comments can never let you evaluate a whole person, because no whole person fits in a text box.
In line with what you did in the earlier comment, now you’re implying that I would have claimed that solitary comments let you evaluate a whole person. I did not; please stop implying otherwise, this is at the very least disingenuous, if not worse.
The whole thing with the cuckoo is that it’s a useful label for people engaging into a certain political behaviour dammit. This is clear by context, if you actually bother to read the OP.
[In the line of what I proposed, I am disengaging. While the user above is not behaving like a cuckoo, I have little to no patience towards assumers putting words into the others’ mouths.]
straw man: cuckoos are really eager to put words into your mouth, and try to force you to defend claims you never did in first place
This one is a really key tell. The people who spend most of their message emphasizing what it is that their opponents believe, and only in passing deal with what they believe (which tends to be along the lines of “well they all want to kill Palestinian babies but I don’t want that, so clearly you can see the difference”), and immediately start telling anyone who talks with them what they believe also… that’s an important signal.
I think it is so popular because it is substantially lower-effort than engaging with anything the person is actually saying, and also t works on anything. You don’t have to be on the right side of the argument, you can just assign your opponent some awful crazy shit, and then get to work disagreeing with that.
I like to point out that Frederick Douglas worked for Lincoln even when Lincoln was not running on ending slvery.
It’s amazing how many people on the ‘Left’ think that Douglas was a traitor to his principles.
When the bring out the MLK letter from Birmingham Jail, I point out that King never explicitly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, even though one of his most important aides was gay. Suddenly, understanding the historic situation becomes important.
Misdirection is a good one too! You’re off topic m8
Douglas spent the majority of Lincoln’s presidency mercilessly and publicly attacking him - claiming he was ‘working for him’ is not only fairly disingenuous but an extremely odd way to characterize their relationship
Idk what your point is with LfB but that letter absolutely slaps.
He attacked Lincoln after helping him get elected. Almost as if a War breaking out changed things.
… You have that backwards.
If you’re actively curious and not just using this selectively to support your own stances on current events, here’s a pretty good resource that describes the bigger picture of their relationship
Douglass opposed Lincoln both when he was a candidate and through most of the beginning of his term as president. Lincoln was, at first, a supporter of the American Colonization plan - which was a belief of some white abolitionists that blacks and whites could not live peacefully with each other, so they sought to emigrate the freed slaves to colonies in Africa. Douglass was justified in detesting that plan and condemning Lincoln’s support of it. Douglass went as far as to say of Lincoln’s presidency that he “has resolved that no good shall come to the Negro from this war.”
I think there’s ample reason to think that Lincoln’s shift in perspective by the end of the civil war was a direct result of Douglass’s influence, but by no measure does anyone on ‘the left’ think of Douglass as a traitor to his morals. He was a patriot who fought tooth-and-nail for what was right, even in the face of compromise presented as ‘progress’.
Your own link shows that Douglas campaigned for Lincoln.
Check my edit. He campaigned for him after his first term (through which he actively opposed him), and only really saw him as an ally after the first 3 years through the civil war (and after Lincoln’s own perspective had shifted).
Edit: keep in mind that Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation January 1st of 63, before Douglass had any interest in campaigning for him. He had literally already abolished slavery before Douglass threw his hat in for him
Leading up to the 1860 election, Frederick Douglass was conflicted about who to support. David W. Blight argues in “Frederick Douglass” that the activist saw Republicans not as true opponents to slavery but rather as just opposed to the power that enslavers could wield politically. Still, he saw supporting the Republicans as his only real option because they at least “humbled the slave power” and fought against it as an institution. Douglass expressed a willingness to work with the Republicans even though he was disappointed by their overall platform. He wrote an article a few months before the election that was positive toward Lincoln.
In the months leading up to the election, Douglass continued to stump for Abraham Lincoln by giving many speeches, and he was involved in other campaigns, like trying to abolish the racist $250 property requirement for Black voters in New York (per Blight). He also worked as a recruiter, getting Black soldiers to join the war effort. A month after the election, Douglass wrote an article in his newspaper, “Douglass’ Monthly,” in which he stated the nomination of Lincoln "demonstrated the possibility of electing … an anti-slavery reputation to the Presidency of the
I had to go and pull out my copy of Blight’s book on Douglass, because it had been a while but I remembered that section of the book differently.
The whole passage is expressing a sentiment very different from the one that ‘Grunge’ article is representing - without transcribing that whole section i’ll just quote the last little bit that summarizes his summer leading up to the election:
spoiler
On July 2 [after his apparent June indication of support for the Republicans], he wrote in a confused tone to Gerrit Smith, who struggled with a mental breakdown in the wake of Harpers Ferry. “I cannot support Lincoln,” Douglass asserted, “but whether there is life enough in the Abolitionists [Radical Abolition Party] to name a candidate, I cannot say. I shall look to your letter for light on the pathway of duty.” Then in August Douglass wrote in the Monthly that the “vital element” of the Republican Party was its “antislavery sentiment.” “Nothing is plainer,” Douglass argued, “than that the Republican party has its source in the old Liberty party.” It would live or die, he contended, “as the abolition sentiment of the country flourishes or fades.” Vexed by his commitments to moral principle and political action, Douglass announced that he would vote for what historian Richard Sewell rightly called the remnant of Gerrit Smith’s “miniscule” radical party, while assiduously working for Lincoln’s election.
The comparison is not quite as clear as I think you’d like, since Douglass’s tentative ‘support’ of Lincoln was motivated by a desire to bring the north and south closer to outright conflict, not as a way of picking a lesser evil or mitigating harm. I’d say Douglass’s sentiment is more in-line with current-day pro-palestinian activists, who acknowledge the political calculus of a moderately-favorable party against an outright hostile one, but who publicly oppose voting for them themselves. He’d be in that same ‘protest-vote’ pool that most people here keep complaining about. I’m actually lightly amused by this apparent reversal, since today it’s more common to find people who say ‘i will vote for democrats’ but then actively campaign against them, but again I think the comparison is strained.
Either way, trying to argue that Douglass ‘worked for Lincoln’ is still incredibly misleading at best, and clearly a liberal self-centeredness that he (and most other black civil rights activists in our history) actively loathed and berated:
Americans, Douglass believed, instinctively and culturally watched history and preferred not to act in it. Douglass summed up his bitter complaint as “this terrible paradox of passing history” rooted in a distinctively American selfishness. “Whoever levies a tax upon our Bohea or Young Hyson [two forms of Chinese tea], will find the whole land blazing with patriotism and bristling with bayonets.” If some foreign power tried to “impress a few Yankee sailors,” Americans would go “fight like heroes.” Douglass fashioned a withering chastisement of American self-centeredness that would match any modern complaint about the culture’s hyperindividualism. “Millions of a foreign race may be stolen from their homes, and reduced to hopeless and inhuman bondage among us,” he complained, “and we either approve the deed, or protest as gently as ‘sucking doves.’ ” His “wickedly selfish” Americans loved to celebrate their “own heritage, and on this condition are content to see others crushed in our midst.” They lived by the “philosophy of Cain,” ready with their bluntly evil answer to the famous question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Douglass’s use of the Cain and Abel parable is all the more telling if we remember that, unlike the more sentimental ways the “brother’s keeper” language is often employed today, Cain had just killed his brother, and to God’s query as to Abel’s fate, Cain replies in effect, why should I care? Douglass wanted the indifferent Americans, with blood on their hands as well, to read on further in Genesis and know Cain’s fate as “a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth.”
Doubtless he wouldn’t have seen as much in the way of redeeming qualities in Biden or Harris, since far from Lincoln’s willingness to engage the south (for the wrong reasons in Douglass’s mind), Biden repeatedly cowered away from confronting Israel’s antagonism and actively sheltered them from consequence. But then again I think neither of us can do more than speculate as to what he’d think of us more than 170 years later.
just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?
This is the same kind of argument that the tankies use to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a CIA plant. At least they name the CIA, you seem to be pointing to an even more ambiguous “they” that are out to get us. This is a conspiracy theory, dress it up all you want but your pointing to some ambiguous “they” and blaming them for your problems with no proof.
Occams razor is that they are leftists who hate the democratic party. They critique them more then the Republicans because the liberal side of lemmy covers that pretty well already, half the front page is shitting on trump right now. That’s good but at a certain point your beating a dead horse, everyone here already hates trump and thinks he’s bad, no point in reinforcing that past a point. A lot of people on here still have loyalty to the democratic party though that far exceeds the democrats loyalty to the left, so pointing that out can be effective and help change people’s minds instead of posting/commenting trump is hitler for the millionth time.
Your interpretation of Occam’s razor is that no one ever lies? Do you really think all human beings being honest about everything they say requires the least number of assumptions?
You’ve successfully clustered a bunch of trolls, time to block a bunch?
In a sense yes, people generally tell the truth more than they lie so the default assumption should be that someone is telling the truth, otherwise you enter into paranoia. That assumption can be broken when there is a clear gain from lying. Eg. You catch a thief outside the store they robbed they have a very clear reason to lie and say they were just walking by.
You’re explanation on why they’re lying isn’t very clear. First off, you fail to name who these people are and leave it ambiguous to let the person reading fill it in with their enemy (maga, nazis, russians etc.) just like every other conspiracy theory. Since the subject isn’t clear neither is the motive, you just sort of fill that in with "they hate the left, why do they hate the left? What are they gaining from convincing maybe a couple dozen liberals that the democrats suck on a very marginal social media? This isn’t the politburo for the comintern, there is barely any power on here to diffuse, so why put effort into doing so when there are far larger platforms to influence.
I’d like to draw a parallel to data security. Why make a strong password if nobody’s out there trying to break into accounts? Why secure your server’s ports if nobody’s going to attack them? Why take precautions against malicious collection of data to sell to third parties if we’re not sure who or how that data would be used?
These are behaviors that we don’t know the specific motivations for, we don’t know the individual bad actors in question or who they’re working for or what their specific plans are. But we know that if someone calls you claiming to be Geeksquad and tells you to go buy a bunch of gift cards to read to them over the phone, you’re being scammed. We know that if someone pretends to be a representative of a company and comes asking for your password, you shouldn’t trust them. We know that if certain kinds of traffic are spamming your ports looking for vulnerabilities, they don’t mean well.
Why? Because we are aware of the threat vector and can move to protect it before knowing the details of who in particular is planning on exploiting it. I don’t need to know specifically which hacker wants to break into my server to limit open ports. I don’t need to know who wants to steal my Steam account to know setting up 2fA is worthwhile.
Assuming good faith in bad actors is a vulnerability. The exploit vector is an attack on the political power of the left. I don’t need to know specifically who is behind it. I could speculate. Maybe it’s MAGA, maybe it’s Russia, maybe it’s some foreign bot-farm being hired by some other authoritarian regime, but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that allowing the threat vector to remain open disempowers the left.
Why Lemmy? Why a small niche leftist platform rather than a larger platform?
Let’s say you’re a time traveler who hates punk music. What would be more effective to stop it before it starts? Sabotaging the planning for the Warped Tour in the 90s, or burning down CBGB in 1973?
CBGB was a small club at the time, barely notable at all. The Warped Tour, on the other hand, was a massive endeavor involving dozens of bands and thousands upon thousands of punk and ska fans. But if you know your history, you know that CBGB was a small venue with a massive impact on the American punk scene. It was a place where a lot of the bands that we know today got their start and came up. The Warped Tour, on the other hand, while probably influential on 90s teenagers who got to go see 20 bands in person for 20 bucks, was mostly just riding the wave of punk’s popularity and capitalizing it.
Targeting leftist spaces, especially small leftist spaces, could potentially be much more effective than targeting more general spaces. Lemmy in particular selects not only for leftists, but for anti-corporate, anti-establishment people with enough of an interest in tech and enough social media presence to jump on the bandwagon of a relatively unknown protocol just so they don’t have to rely on corporate social media. It has a barrier for entry that most of the public find to be either too daunting to bother to surmount, or that involves enough obscurity that they’re not even aware of it to begin with.
Beehaw in particular has human-vetted signups and even has a history of defederating with instances that have open sign-ups in order to be able to deal with moderation. A lot of that moderation is literally just contending with social conservatives who show up spouting racism, queerphobia, sexism, and ablism.
In other words, we are a small space that caters to a particular crowd of people well outside the mainstream politically, socially, and technologically. Small, niche spaces have a tremendous potential for resulting in wider-spread influence.
It’s not about convincing us that democrats suck. Most of us aren’t particularly happy with the democratic establishment anyway. It’s about demotivating us and frustrating our internal communications. It’s about trying to sabotage a potential locus for resistance.
And it isn’t just Lemmy. It isn’t even just the left that’s being targeted. We know social media is being used to pollute discourse and manipulate politics. We know there’s an artificial rightward push going on, and we know that it isn’t just the United States that’s being targeted with it. But anyone who wants to advance this artificial rightward push has a strong motivation to exploit any vulnerabilities that can be found in the US because of our position globally. Now that that position is crumbling, they have a strong motivation to make sure it doesn’t recover.
We have a responsibility to address that threat vector no matter who those parties are.
This isn’t data security though. In a cyber security context, yes paranoia is a valuable attribute. It can let you catch threats before they happen which is good.
In a political context though, paranoia, especially directed within the organization, is a corrosive and reactionary attribute. It divides and causes factionalism in political organization and brings energy away from making positive change and fighting the actual oppressors and puts that energy toward testing and purging your “allies”.
If a group out of power gives into paranoia and conspiracies they just divide into smaller and smaller factions who don’t trust each other and can’t work together to gain power. If a group in power gives in to paranoia, the majority group tends to start purging whoever they can claim are “fakes” conveniently along with everyone else they disagree with.
I can’t think of a single time in history where paranoia directed at secret enemies within has ever helped a progressive cause. Meanwhile I can name tons of instances where it destroyed a progressive cause, or at least it’s credibility and popularity: the reign of terror, stalins purges, mao’s cultural revolution, even in modern day Maduro loves to claim the CIA is out to get him.
It never helps the cause, it is just used as a way for the leaders of the group to offload any anger directed at the people in charge of the organization towards some, often imagined, sabotoeurs. Collectivization failing and causing mass starvation? Is it stalins fault?, no it’s the kulaks and the trotskyists sabotaging the revolution.
The democrats have failed us, twice now. Instead of recognizing there failure and changing tack they’re trying to direct anger at the enemy within, progressives and Palestinian activists who they claim are sabotaging the democratic chances and are probably agents of russia. Pelosi literally told a group of pro-palestinian activists protesting on her lawn to “go back to russia”.
We need to stop focusing on finding the “Russian assets in our midst” and focus on reforming the democratic party and defeating trumpism with a positive plan for change.
One disagreement. Dems have been failing us since FDR left office.
As a leftist:
- True, It’s a piece of paper. If you think that will save us, you’re a dumbass.
- Mostly True, Look up the ratchet effect.
- Mostly False, we’ve had due process. It’s been unfair to minority communities, but in general it’s existed.
- Mostly False, He was mildly better. This is faint praise given he was a demented fossil facilitating a genocide.
Mildly better. Well, if this post accomplished one thing it was self-identification of the people it is about.
Neat how you ignored the rest of the sentence there. Probably because those aren’t contestable points huh?
“Mostly False, He was mildly better.”
Does that help?
This is faint praise given he was a demented fossil facilitating a genocide.
You know what I meant. Being obtuse doesn’t help your case, it just makes you look like a debate pervert.
And my point was that Biden was worlds better than Trump.
This post is beyond delusional. It’s like the meme about everything I don’t like is woke. The liberal version basically being everything I don’t like is a Russian/MAGA bot. Is it really that hard to believe that left leaning people don’t agree with the Democratic Party platform? You’re deeper in your bubble than you realize my friend.
Oh look, someone who’s generalizing op then tries to discredit them! Way to prove their point
They didn’t make any type of platform or political argument to even debate against. Basically saying that everyone who dislikes democrats is secretly a republican. That’s all I’m calling them on. Total nonsense.
Misdirection, nice! That’s cuz this is not about platforms or any political argument, dr Troll
You’re goofy man. I don’t even know what your point is. OP said something. I said I disagreed with it. Epic troll by me I guess.
Go to a politics or platforms community if you’re looking for a politic argument or stuff about platforms
Thank you for the suggestion.
Let’s just get a few facts out of the way:
- Genocide is the worst crime humanity is capable of
- The US has a direct hand in multiple genocides
- Record levels of homelessness in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
- Death from preventable illnesses in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
- Highest infant mortality in the western world in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
- Democrats are not interested in changing the status quo
- Republicans want a return to chattel slavery
- Neither party is willing to help us, nor will they ever allow us to vote third party by adding ranked choice or anything liek that
- Therefore, our best bet to break the cycle is to collectively vote for, say, the green party
You think leftists are unrealistic for being disgusted with Democrats? The genocide was live streamed to the world. Did you not see any of it? Did it not move you?
I was with you but then you said vote green?
If you’re going to vote, vote against the Republican party. If you want change from status quo, the ballot box isn’t where it will happen
voting Green is voting against Republicans
In my case, I’m in a deep blue state. Otherwise I would grit my teeth and vote for the “lesser” evil. But we really do need a new party.
The current US voting system does not allow for a 3rd party to have a chance. If you want a new party, then you either need to replace one of the main two, or change the electoral rules.
From the outside, it doesn’t seem like either option is likely to happen peacefully, so things will likely need to get way much worse before they get any better.
Oh, I know. But imagine, if you will, if enough people collectively decided to vote 3rd party. It’s a minority of Americans who even vote at all. If a third party received the majority of votes, they would have to be put in office – hypothetically at least.
if enough people collectively decided to vote 3rd party.
Then it would either become the 1st/2nd party, or disappear into oblivion. If it could became part of Congress, where it could look for alliances, then maybe… but based on current sentiment, it seems unlikely.
Happy International Worker’s Day. Every single leader of emancipatory movements in the history of labor rights would disagree with you, having fought and been very vocal against the different flavors of oppression in order to get the liberal concessions that you seem to cherish today. Hopefully if you participate, you might find some leftists celebrating in the crowd. Please don’t get too angry at them for not defending genociders, I’m sure a lot of them ended up voting for Kamala anyway, but at least they got the confirmation that even opposing genocide is too great a hurdle for them.
I’m tired but I guess I’ll still address some of the traits you identified:
Claiming to be leftists
I’m a leftist
Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
Okay that doesn’t sound like leftist behavior, you’re totally right. I just hope you don’t mean that “power possessed by the left” is the democratic party, but sure, that broadly sounds like liberals or feds.
Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
There’s a point to which you can push liberal concessions for damage control or for actually gaining some more concessions. I think criticizing voting is healthy since it’s still playing the capitalist’s game and a liberal “democracy” with almost no wiggle room anymore, but considering how little effort it takes to vote I’ll always advocate to both play their game and also assume that nothing will come out of it without actual pressure.
I’ve mostly seen people advocate for withholding their vote in the favor of some concession (please don’t do genocide), I’ve never seen someone say “don’t vote and also don’t do anything else”, but I’m sure they exist, you find all kinds of confused people online.
Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
Is genocide disqualifying for a political party or not? I’m asking you, specifically, if you think that a party that commits (funds, arms, protects, justifies, excuses, does constant propaganda for) a genocide in the face of their own atrocities, while actively silencing the voices within their own ranks that speak out, is worth defending? Again, I think the idea was to hopefully change the democratic party to the radical position of “anti genocide”. That failure is on them, not the people who threatened not to vote for them.
Not highlighting that issue is frankly criminal.
Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
Yeah that’s leftism, that’s always been leftism, but again I hope to god you don’t mean that “leftist political power” here represents the democratic party, so I’m gonna assume you mean more broadly what they call “purity politics” and constant division in the left. I think it’s fair to criticize people to the right of you, I’m to the right of anarchists and I welcome their criticism, even when I don’t agree with it. If I spent my time shitting on them I think they would be completely legitimate in calling me out for someone with ulterior motives, or a reactionary shithead.
Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
I want you to examine your own sentence just for a second. To disempower an attempt at legitimate engagement with the political system. Opposing genocide isn’t used as a moral cudgel against whatever 10 steps removed version of power this is (and I’m not criticizing the way you put it, quite the opposite), it’s used AGAINST GENOCIDE.
People are out in the streets and criticizing liberal complicity because we talk about GENOCIDE not some vague questionable US foreign policy.
Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
So that’s the democratic party, right? That’s why I’m confused because leftists are out in the street, even the most liberal ones with their “fight oligarchy” campaign, while the democrats are still out defending genocide, doing filibusters without a cause, and generally trailing so far behind the average population that it’s mind numbing. So I don’t know what you mean when you say “leftists”, because you seem to refer to two groups at the same time.
Anyway, voting goes both way, you can’t pretend to vote in a vacuum for the lesser evil without recognizing that you empower them and their genocidal endeavors.
And I’ll be a little more incisive: If you criticize a leftist of not caring about minorities (which I’ve seen a lot and is deeply ironic considering who did and didn’t vote for the dems) you open yourself to be criticized for having proudly voted and called on everyone else to vote for a party that does genocide, and having attacked the ones that tried to actually make a difference in shifting their position or using that moment to show what their true colors are.
and generally trailing so far behind the average population
I put it to you that this is a gerontocracy problem. It’s easy to fall behind where the general public is at when Congress is a grotesque take on Weekend at Bernie’s (no, not that Bernie, and yes, I’m aware of the irony).
I think that can often be a problem in political structures, but I don’t think this is the main issue. It might explain how their messaging is so terrible, but the republicans have clearly managed just fine and the average is almost exactly the same in both.
I think it’s primarily that they see support for Israel as an absolute necessity because it would (1) be another massive loss of support and political funding, and (2) a very difficult pill to swallow. Admitting to having supported a horrible genocide in full conscience and trying to convince that they have now learned their way might still look like a steeper hill to climb than the time-tested tradition of genocide denial.
It’d be great if it was the main issue though, I think you’re right in that at least they would have better messaging, unfortunately I don’t think the actual policies would be much different. In Europe for example fascist parties tend to be pretty young 🤷♂️
In Europe for example fascist parties tend to be pretty young
When you didn’t grow up with any exposure to people who lived through WWII, and then you’ve seen quality of life go down your entire life, it’s somewhat of a logical conclusion to go with “anything would be better than this.” Obviously not true, but the baseline is low.
Welcome to propaganda and people affected by it. You’re not safe from the stuff online.
I’m not an american (but anti-electoral nonetheless), and I do get the critique and think it is perfectly valid if one views things through liberal framework - vote for the lesser evil, minimize suffering, not voting is letting the bad candidate on getting the upper hand, etc.
However, this isn’t an objective position but an ideological one, as it operates within lesser-evilism, coalitionism within capitalist institutions and having a definition of “the left” that generalizes them to essentially having to be “pro-democracy somewhat progressive liberals”, and any deviation makes them into a troll or a right winger or something like that.
What is important to realize is that most leftists aren’t liberals - in fact, many leftists, particularly Marxists, view elections as:
-
A way to legitimize the class rule that leads into passivity among the working class who are being ruled over, essentially recognizing that this “tool that we are given” is just an illusion and leads to neutralization of worker power,
-
Enabling of ‘capitalist-tribalism’ in the form of “which capitalist manager do you support” which is seen in US through party loyalty and basically disarming the working class from realizing their own interests.
Essentially, their goal isn’t to just “vote for the lesser evil” or “achieve the maximum good through the means we’re given” but to abolish the system entirely, and electorialism/voting is counter-productive in that regard due to legitimizing effect that it has that I mentioned previously. This does go against the “liberal left” and their goals, and being on the same political wing does not automatically mean there’s an alliance or shared goals, nor does it mean that two positions aren’t going to have antagonistic goals.
Besides, why blame the left for the electoral failure who abstained from voting? Why not blame MAGA for voting in an enemy that goes against your interests (as in, people who have actually voted)?
I agree with the concept that electoral politics will not bring us the change we want but disagree with the notion that it isn’t beneficial to vote for lesser evil.
We exist in both paradigms. The worse evil does directly impact our lives, this isn’t debatable especially with Trump, so it makes sense to vote for lesser evil. Leftists are correct the lesser evil voting does not change the status quo (ratchet theory) but I view it as incorrect for leftists to moralize the act of voting to the point that if you vote you are not a leftist
It’s a tool and revolution is easier when you aren’t under threat of being sent to a concentration camp. These are issues of tactics not virtue
In addition to that:
A proletariat that keeps disempowering itself is a proletariat unable to fight in an eventual revolution. And fascism is all about disempowering the masses.
So sometimes you need to bite into the sour apple and vote, even if this means voting in an absolute clown against someone who’s a clown and a fascist, and in the process playing along a system that is utterly corrupt and made to enforce the elites are kept in place.
There just isn’t that kind of leftist discourse in America. If there are communists here, I’ve never met one in real life, and I live in a very progressive region. Lemmy has been my first real exposure to anything further left of democratic socialism. I’m not sure why non-Americans are so continually surprised that we use “liberal” framework to discuss politics (that word means something completely different to us than it does to you). It would be great if the far right didn’t keep moving us to the right, but that’s the situation we live in. As capitalism fails, more people are waking up to the class struggle, but you can’t just change a whole country’s political paradigm overnight.
Honestly, this applies to EU too. There are still communists out there in real world (mostly found in university groups, labor unions or just some very niche book clubs), but way fewer than when compared to 20th century thanks to the efforts of red scare, the hellscape of “socialist” regimes, etc. There’s also the fact that if you want to be a communist, you need to go way out of your way to seek the theory and groups and actually study rather than having the ideology imposed onto you (but exceptions apply, like how Marxism-Leninism and Maoism can definitely be cultish).
Also, “liberal framework” in my comment was referring to viewing politics as choosing between good or bad, treating the system as being a fair, neutral arbiter, and it’s how majority view electorialism since that’s what is imposed onto us. Doesn’t really have to do anything with progressives being referred to as liberals in the US, but just taking liberal democracy at its face value.
-
