Now *that’s* a clickbait title. Engaging, provocative, specific enough to make me angry but vague enough that I need to read the article to rebut it. Just fantastic stuff.
Key_Environment8179 on
This is missing the thing I want to read about the most:
How the twitter lefties reacted to Pritchard telling them to stop abusing people they disagreed with
Cyberhwk on
>Second, it was costless.
I think this is a huge one. I think where a lot of current leftist activism goes wrong is they demand things of people that don’t want it. You MUST get the vaccine. You MUST wear a mask. MANDATORY DEI training. You must go to a lesser school because of someone else’s hardship. Social expectations you put pronouns in your bios. Spaces you’re familiar and comfortable with are done away with for inclusivity.
Legalizing same-sex marriage was, “Hey! All we’re asking is you to sit home and enjoy your football game with your conservative-coded beer of choice. Nothing needed. You stay comfortable and we’ll handle the rest.” Indeed, the major marriage equality issue we’re still fighting is…demanding of people that they make cakes.
I understand there are going to be issues where this is simply not the case, but appeals to laziness works wonders.
kiwibutterket on
>Progressive Democrats are now maximalists […] Anything else is a cowardly half-measure. […] Too often the only accepted policy is the biggest, most maximal policy, which is often not the best policy.
>But progressives today shy away from having hard discussions about costs or trade-offs. Instead, activists usually deny that tradeoffs exist and live in a fantasy where everything can be easily done, there are no negative consequences, and nobody has to pay for it.
>And finally, progressive issues are now messaged as moral imperatives. To listen to many activists from the last decade, the only reason to be against [x] is that you’re an immoral reactionary. There’s often no attempt to argue for one policy over another. Instead, policies are simply asserted as moral necessities. This is politics by axiom—it’s simply true that our position is morally correct, and any attempt to argue for a different policy or to discuss costs or tradeoffs is immoral.
God this irritates me to no end. Clearly, the best policy is the most moral one, and since it is the best, there are literally no possible objections to it. How can the best have any negative consequences or perverse incentives?
>You might think that you shouldn’t have to communicate empathetically with bigots, or compromise with people who have stupid ideas, or tolerate people whose politics you strongly dislike. I’d agree that it sure would be fun if we never had to do any of those things, and we could win every issue in the purest and least compromising way possible.
This is also the worst. When I was doing LGBT+ activism IRL, starting a decade ago, I started by talking kindly to old, conservative, religious people. Some of my progressive friends insulted me over it, because I was not using the best language or models, or I was using God to convince people. The point is getting people on your side, not insulting people and showing off your moral high ground.
Andy_Liberty_1911 on
Something the article did not mention also is that relying on the courts to give rights to Americans such as abortion and gay marriage was a horrible idea. You have to get these rights via legislation, not reading between the lines of the constitution which has backfired in us in recent years.
WantDebianThanks on
I suddenly think there needs to be an activism ping or something, because I don’t think !ping democracy really fits, but that someone should be pinged over this.
your_not_stubborn on
Uhhh
> Public opinion moved remarkably fast. Gay marriage, from 2009 to 2015, went from a -17 issue to a +23 issue. This culminated in the landmark decision Obergefell vs. Hodges,
The changing public opinion didn’t cause Obergefell.
New Supreme Court justices did.
I would also like to point out that social media began dominating people’s lives and replaced actual activism for many, and it was getting noticeable at around the same time.
Also, at least tens of millions of dollars being spent on right-wing social media outreach to paint them as cool and anyone else as an unhinged purple haired scold who hates men.
E_Cayce on
> I think there are three main claims that Pritchard, myself, and a few others are making:
> * Republicans used to be the scolds while Democrats were cool and accepting.
> * Something changed, and now Democrats are the scolds while Republicans are more chill about internal disagreements.
> * Democrats, especially progressives and the left, have adopted a mode of discourse that assumes all culture wars move left over time – and all you have to do is yell at your opponent until they end up retreating in shame.
> I think all three of these things are self-evidently true.
Must be nice living in a bubble where these are truths. Not in red America they aren’t.
‘Cool and accepting’ Republicans in Texas are banning books, calling gay marriage an aberration, and killing women who suffer miscarriages. All in name of their chill culture wars.
It’s not about medicare for all or other policy items, but basic human rights in these parts.
ExistentialCalm on
I read through the article, and it seems like a lot of the behavior described is actually just describing political Twitter. Are Dems in office really pushing all-or-nothing tactics like this?
I think the real problem comes from people seeing this type of behavior online and pushing against it in the opposite direction. I would guess most people don’t really give a shit about Trans people, but they don’t like how rabid people are when someone makes a misstep and uses the wrong pronoun, etc.
Along those same lines, I saw people listing reasons why they didn’t vote for Kamala, and listed things that aren’t even in her platform. But they certainly saw people screaming about it online.
But how on earth do we control the keyboard warriors? I’m not even sure if such a thing is possible.
brak_obama on
RE: Being a scold and changing opinions, I think back a lot in these conversations to my time in competitive HS and College debate. Arguing to convince the other person is pointless. You argue to convince the judge — in this case, a third party that ostensibly doesn’t have an existing strongly-held opinion on the issue. We argue with bigots because non-bigots should be able to see how ridiculous the bigot is, and scolding is usually bad at that. Consider the optics of the *[triggered]* meme, and whether you really want to come off like that.
ilikepix on
the “no bananas under socialism” article linked is hilarious and worth a read if you want to stoke your own sense of indignation
>Also, i think it would actually be a richer and more fun existence for all of us if bananas were a rare treat to enjoy after days spent traveling by electrified rail and sea lanes, maybe a few times in your life, instead of part of an undifferentiated, universal consumer sludge
“Under socialism, you’ll travel for four days to eat a banana. Here’s why that’s a good thing”
stanlana12345 on
Very true
Beer-survivalist on
This is essentially correct: The emergence of a postmodern, puritanical scolding culture from (in large part) online discourse inside closed and ideologically coherent groups is a multifarious problem. Not only does it serve to alienate people outside of those groups (read: almost everyone) but it demands self-censorship and the cessation of internal criticism, which is always bad.
Plants_et_Politics on
>I can already feel the social media provocateurs taking this out of context
You did that intentionally by titling it this way because you understand how ragebait and contrarian mockery against those who fall for ragebait works
financeguy1729 on
Society changed very quickly during the early 2010s, to the point that a lot of minorities having ultimate success, and, in my view, should abdicate activism. Gay activism and women activism being the main ones.
financeguy1729 on
One interesting outcome of ultimate progressive success that was achieved, was a very weird position with regards to freedom of speech.
Most liberals proposed freedom of speech was a way to push society forward. But if we’re in (local) maxima, most ideas the marketplace of ideas brings are ideas that are reactionary. This is testing people’s faith in freedom of speech
Golda_M on
IMO it has to do with who is running the show.
The hard left tail wags the dog. It’s not true that the Democrats do not compromise. It’s just that only the hard left gets to choose the compromises.
Take women’s liberation issues and the intersection with minority culture. Conservative Muslims & Hindus, for example. Here values like inclusion, tolerance and gender equality tend find a practical, workable balance. It works for activists and the left wing. It also works for the Democratic party who generally overperform among conservative-but-minority voters.
There are genuine moral tensions here, but “the coalition” organically finds relative harmony.
The balance between humane treatment of homeless people, scandinavian-inspired policy aspirations and public order… that’s a balance that cannot be struck. Compromises that cannot be made.
Free speech… the centrists have basically broken to the left.
MuldartheGreat on
> No one, absolutely no one—not even the most dishonest globe emoji neoliberal freak—buys a banana at Trader Joe’s in Calgary in December and marvels in ecstasy at the decadent opulence of modern capitalism.
I know this is a point linked to a previous issue on tangentially related. I’m not Calgary, but it’s me! I am that dishonest globe emoji neoliberal freak.
I actually spend a decent bit of time looking at where my produce comes from.
19 Comments
The title is provocative because clickbait works, but the actual argument is less so.
This is adapted from something [I first read in the DT from /u/Deggit years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/atsmcv/discussion_thread/eh4wkil/)
Now *that’s* a clickbait title. Engaging, provocative, specific enough to make me angry but vague enough that I need to read the article to rebut it. Just fantastic stuff.
This is missing the thing I want to read about the most:
How the twitter lefties reacted to Pritchard telling them to stop abusing people they disagreed with
>Second, it was costless.
I think this is a huge one. I think where a lot of current leftist activism goes wrong is they demand things of people that don’t want it. You MUST get the vaccine. You MUST wear a mask. MANDATORY DEI training. You must go to a lesser school because of someone else’s hardship. Social expectations you put pronouns in your bios. Spaces you’re familiar and comfortable with are done away with for inclusivity.
Legalizing same-sex marriage was, “Hey! All we’re asking is you to sit home and enjoy your football game with your conservative-coded beer of choice. Nothing needed. You stay comfortable and we’ll handle the rest.” Indeed, the major marriage equality issue we’re still fighting is…demanding of people that they make cakes.
I understand there are going to be issues where this is simply not the case, but appeals to laziness works wonders.
>Progressive Democrats are now maximalists […] Anything else is a cowardly half-measure. […] Too often the only accepted policy is the biggest, most maximal policy, which is often not the best policy.
>But progressives today shy away from having hard discussions about costs or trade-offs. Instead, activists usually deny that tradeoffs exist and live in a fantasy where everything can be easily done, there are no negative consequences, and nobody has to pay for it.
>And finally, progressive issues are now messaged as moral imperatives. To listen to many activists from the last decade, the only reason to be against [x] is that you’re an immoral reactionary. There’s often no attempt to argue for one policy over another. Instead, policies are simply asserted as moral necessities. This is politics by axiom—it’s simply true that our position is morally correct, and any attempt to argue for a different policy or to discuss costs or tradeoffs is immoral.
God this irritates me to no end. Clearly, the best policy is the most moral one, and since it is the best, there are literally no possible objections to it. How can the best have any negative consequences or perverse incentives?
>You might think that you shouldn’t have to communicate empathetically with bigots, or compromise with people who have stupid ideas, or tolerate people whose politics you strongly dislike. I’d agree that it sure would be fun if we never had to do any of those things, and we could win every issue in the purest and least compromising way possible.
This is also the worst. When I was doing LGBT+ activism IRL, starting a decade ago, I started by talking kindly to old, conservative, religious people. Some of my progressive friends insulted me over it, because I was not using the best language or models, or I was using God to convince people. The point is getting people on your side, not insulting people and showing off your moral high ground.
Something the article did not mention also is that relying on the courts to give rights to Americans such as abortion and gay marriage was a horrible idea. You have to get these rights via legislation, not reading between the lines of the constitution which has backfired in us in recent years.
I suddenly think there needs to be an activism ping or something, because I don’t think !ping democracy really fits, but that someone should be pinged over this.
Uhhh
> Public opinion moved remarkably fast. Gay marriage, from 2009 to 2015, went from a -17 issue to a +23 issue. This culminated in the landmark decision Obergefell vs. Hodges,
The changing public opinion didn’t cause Obergefell.
New Supreme Court justices did.
I would also like to point out that social media began dominating people’s lives and replaced actual activism for many, and it was getting noticeable at around the same time.
Also, at least tens of millions of dollars being spent on right-wing social media outreach to paint them as cool and anyone else as an unhinged purple haired scold who hates men.
> I think there are three main claims that Pritchard, myself, and a few others are making:
> * Republicans used to be the scolds while Democrats were cool and accepting.
> * Something changed, and now Democrats are the scolds while Republicans are more chill about internal disagreements.
> * Democrats, especially progressives and the left, have adopted a mode of discourse that assumes all culture wars move left over time – and all you have to do is yell at your opponent until they end up retreating in shame.
> I think all three of these things are self-evidently true.
Must be nice living in a bubble where these are truths. Not in red America they aren’t.
‘Cool and accepting’ Republicans in Texas are banning books, calling gay marriage an aberration, and killing women who suffer miscarriages. All in name of their chill culture wars.
It’s not about medicare for all or other policy items, but basic human rights in these parts.
I read through the article, and it seems like a lot of the behavior described is actually just describing political Twitter. Are Dems in office really pushing all-or-nothing tactics like this?
I think the real problem comes from people seeing this type of behavior online and pushing against it in the opposite direction. I would guess most people don’t really give a shit about Trans people, but they don’t like how rabid people are when someone makes a misstep and uses the wrong pronoun, etc.
Along those same lines, I saw people listing reasons why they didn’t vote for Kamala, and listed things that aren’t even in her platform. But they certainly saw people screaming about it online.
But how on earth do we control the keyboard warriors? I’m not even sure if such a thing is possible.
RE: Being a scold and changing opinions, I think back a lot in these conversations to my time in competitive HS and College debate. Arguing to convince the other person is pointless. You argue to convince the judge — in this case, a third party that ostensibly doesn’t have an existing strongly-held opinion on the issue. We argue with bigots because non-bigots should be able to see how ridiculous the bigot is, and scolding is usually bad at that. Consider the optics of the *[triggered]* meme, and whether you really want to come off like that.
the “no bananas under socialism” article linked is hilarious and worth a read if you want to stoke your own sense of indignation
>Also, i think it would actually be a richer and more fun existence for all of us if bananas were a rare treat to enjoy after days spent traveling by electrified rail and sea lanes, maybe a few times in your life, instead of part of an undifferentiated, universal consumer sludge
“Under socialism, you’ll travel for four days to eat a banana. Here’s why that’s a good thing”
Very true
This is essentially correct: The emergence of a postmodern, puritanical scolding culture from (in large part) online discourse inside closed and ideologically coherent groups is a multifarious problem. Not only does it serve to alienate people outside of those groups (read: almost everyone) but it demands self-censorship and the cessation of internal criticism, which is always bad.
>I can already feel the social media provocateurs taking this out of context
You did that intentionally by titling it this way because you understand how ragebait and contrarian mockery against those who fall for ragebait works
Society changed very quickly during the early 2010s, to the point that a lot of minorities having ultimate success, and, in my view, should abdicate activism. Gay activism and women activism being the main ones.
One interesting outcome of ultimate progressive success that was achieved, was a very weird position with regards to freedom of speech.
Most liberals proposed freedom of speech was a way to push society forward. But if we’re in (local) maxima, most ideas the marketplace of ideas brings are ideas that are reactionary. This is testing people’s faith in freedom of speech
IMO it has to do with who is running the show.
The hard left tail wags the dog. It’s not true that the Democrats do not compromise. It’s just that only the hard left gets to choose the compromises.
Take women’s liberation issues and the intersection with minority culture. Conservative Muslims & Hindus, for example. Here values like inclusion, tolerance and gender equality tend find a practical, workable balance. It works for activists and the left wing. It also works for the Democratic party who generally overperform among conservative-but-minority voters.
There are genuine moral tensions here, but “the coalition” organically finds relative harmony.
The balance between humane treatment of homeless people, scandinavian-inspired policy aspirations and public order… that’s a balance that cannot be struck. Compromises that cannot be made.
Free speech… the centrists have basically broken to the left.
> No one, absolutely no one—not even the most dishonest globe emoji neoliberal freak—buys a banana at Trader Joe’s in Calgary in December and marvels in ecstasy at the decadent opulence of modern capitalism.
I know this is a point linked to a previous issue on tangentially related. I’m not Calgary, but it’s me! I am that dishonest globe emoji neoliberal freak.
I actually spend a decent bit of time looking at where my produce comes from.