- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Top vs bottom not left versus right. Don’t let the oligarchs divide us.
How are those different?
They’re very different.
There’s only about 3k billionaires on Earth. There’s only about 30k 100 million plus inaires on Earth.
These are sociopaths sucking humanity dry and ending the habitability of this planet permanently for ego, short term profit, and mega yachts.
Focus your ire on them. Focus your antagonism on them. Not their poor, deluded, propandized, gullible useful idiots that diefy them. Pity them.
The true enemies that must be dealt with only number in the hundreds of thousands relative to our 300 million. We know where to find them. They suck each other off in places like Wall Street and Malibu, orchestrating new and interesting ways to murder us to goose quarterly profits.
That’s entirely leftist. How does “bottom” differ?
Given this is a primarily American sub, the audience must be played to.
The audience being Americans, they almosy entirely consider our slightly less fascist right wing party, the Democrats, to be our “left.”
And if right/left is subjective to the spectrum of a nation, I guess the Neoliberals are since they aren’t actively for death camps for minorities, which is technically left of the Republicans. Technically.
The United States had any conception of an economic left beaten out of it ever since FDR left office. Leftist policies are spoken about like voldemort as a result.
It makes more sense not to try to rehab a century of propaganda and call it up vs down. Plus Americans are poorly educated by design to be compliant laborers. Up vs down is a simpler concept, for simpler people, than left vs right.
The correct way is to judge people for what they activelly support, which also means not slimly implying that by not supporting one side people implicitly support the other - it’s a perfectly valid position to not like any of the choices one has been presented with and thus chosing “None of the above” rather than A or B.
“If you’re not with us you’re against us” is just about the most typically Fascist (and, more in general, authoritarian) argument there is, so those doing it don’t be surprised if, even if you’re wearing a different mask than outright-Fascist and claiming you have the moral high ground, you’re judged as somebody who thinks along the same lines as Fascists rather than along Democratic or Humanitarian lines.
Mind you, the quoted post is impeccably fair in that sense, but here in Lemmy there’s a lot of people who, unlike that quote, stray beyond blaming people for their choices into parroting authoritarian logic that blames people for non-choices.
Do you know who coined the phrase If you’re not with me you are against me? George Orwell. Even being ‘neutral’ means you passively support whatever bullshit the ‘winner’ wants to do. Inaction is as much a choice of action as doing something. If you have a fire extinguisher and there is a person literally on fire but you simply do nothing, you are as responsible for the person’s horrific death as the person who set them on fire.
Saying ‘I am completely neutral in this regard’ when Elon Musk and his cronies are actively plundering the government and absolutely destroying the government’s ability to investigate the crimes and misconduct that they are committing, as well as destroying the livelihoods and lives of millions of people, means you are fully accepting of what is going on, that it is normal and if they want to do it, they can go ahead.
Haha wait a minute.
Are you… Are you trying to justify your Uncommitted BoTh SiDeS bullshit?
- As though drinking the lesser poison is as bad as drinking the greater poison.
- As though this not only means you’re opting for this, but you’re contributing to the current that forces others to do the same by enabling the greater poison?
- As though just because you weren’t necessarily the person to rat out Anne Frank, you also didn’t lift finger to resist the Nazi oppression that makes one superior? Looking the other way and sitting on the couch?
Because if this is the case, then yes, there are people like me who utilize logic & ethics to demonstrate that said people are, indeed, a part of the problem and enabling of fascism.
“But I just cared about the economy (more than civil rights, democracy, the rule of law, or basic human decency.)”
For me, this is the most maddening comment about our situation. The economy has done better under democratic leadership since we’ve kept track.
It’s worrying. This demonstrates (again) how people can be manipulated into supporting anything if tickled the right way.
I told a former friend of mine that I’d lost so much respect for her judgment of character that I couldn’t continue pretending not to look down on her and that it would be best if we stopped hanging out together.
No regrets.
All this, except change “Trump” to “literally any Republican in the last 50 years”
They’ve been dog whistling at racists to try to win elections their “kill the new deal and bring back feudalism” economic platform couldn’t at least since Goldwater ran for the presidency
If they were capable of feeling shame, this might hurt them.
They’re capable of feeling shame, just not for what you or I feel shame for.
The trick is to find out what hurts them.
You’ve got to make them an outcast to their in group.
So stupid shit like pointing out their hands are nicely manicured (if they are a man) that’s why they wear lifts and shoes too large for their feet.
Or for women you call them a man. That’s why they do it to every woman they hate.
Just observe them. They lay their cards right on the table.
The problem, of course, lies in striking the balance between speaking to them in their own terms, and reinforcing the values that many of their terms reflect.
I judge you for all that and also for your choice of political party because they represent all those things.
I know some very good people who voted for the incompetent, confused and weak Jabba-the-Orange. I judge them to be extremely stupid.
What amazingly good acts have they done to outweigh their support of such evil? The genocide in Gaza will be completed and climate change will get significantly worse.
Unpopular opinion: if you base your arguments in political debates around morals, you’ll only be able to convince people who share your moral standpoint.
As a Leftwinger (real one, not the American notion of left-of-Trump being Leftwing) this is something I’ve though about a lot.
For example, most people are driven to some level or other by Greed: for example, if you think about it, when people from the “Working class” demand things for the “Working class”, are they driven by a pure desire for equality or is it really about benefiting themselves as members of the “Working class”? Ditto for “Positive Discrimination” being demanded by people who will benefit from it - is it really about equality or is it Personal Upside Maximization hidding behind the “group”?
Choices driven by Greed above all often collide with the whole “Greatest good for the greatest number” principle of the Leftwing.
Anyways, “screw you, my moral standpoint is different so I don’t care about what you say” as an absolute rule is how the Left fragments, so indeed an absolutist take of “If your Moral standpoint is not exactly the same as mine I won’t listen to you” is self-defeating in the strategical sense.
Then again, going totally in the opposite direction - i.e. no people should be shunned due to their Moral standpoint - also ends up with some weird results: if somebody has a moral standpoint that “Slavery is just the Weak being put in their proper place by the Strong, and as Strong people they’re superior hence have a right to chose what others do” (I almost puked a little in my mouth writting this), should we really try to do anything else than shun people whose moral standpoint is that?
Personally my compromise is that some Moral standpoints are unnacceptable and those who hold them do not deserve any attempt at finding a middle point between me and them - in other words, even in Morality there are red lines - and whilst we should indeed listen to those who are on the right side of those red lines even if we don’t quite have the same Moral standpoint, those on the wrong side of those red lines are beyond salvation and not worth the effort.
if you think about it, when people from the “Working class” demand things for the “Working class”, are they driven by a pure desire for equality or is it really about benefiting themselves as members of the “Working class”?
There’s a difference to “greed” and “self-interest”. It benefits me as a member of the working class if my class gets power. Personally, I have a moral reason behind class solidarity. But it’s not the only reason.
Then again, going totally in the opposite direction - i.e. no people should be shunned due to their Moral standpoint - also ends up with some weird results
Yeah, I didn’t say that you should never disagree with someone based on moral grounds. But if you’re debating with someone, then moral arguments can be very ineffective or you basically already agree with each other. The OP in the tweet chose to gloat about their moral superiority, which helps basically no one.
and whilst we should indeed listen to those who are on the right side of those red lines even if we don’t quite have the same Moral standpoint, those on the wrong side of those red lines are beyond salvation and not worth the effort
I think that the amount of people who are that far gone is way exaggerated. I’m sure that a lot of Trump voters are in the “leopards ate my face” cathegory and can therefore be convinced. But you don’t convince people by shaming them. The others (Nick Fuentes and the likes) don’t care about your moral judgement.
I don’t think the point here is “I should be able to convince you”, it’s “We’re not friends anymore, because you’re a genuine piece of shit from a moral standpoint”.
Good luck with trying to improve the political landscape while not talking to a large part of the population, then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Have you talked to Trump voters, man?
Most of them are not salvageable.
It’s the same essential mistake that the Harris campaign committed this past election which may have lost us our democracy permanently - a favorite mistake of the Democratic Party seeking to fend off its left-wing by showing (or, in this case, ‘showing’) that bipartisanship and reaching ‘across the aisle’ is a winning formula. Trying to reason with right-wing voters in this country is a lost fucking cause. Reasoning with those who’ve tuned out due to apathy or despair is the way forward - assuming, of course, that votes matter going forward, which is far from guaranteed.
You’re confusino peer to peer communication with top-down propaganda. Not the same thing, homie.
Lord.
I agree with you but Im having difficulty figuring out how to convert people who voted to place people in camps.
Step one: don’t try to “convert” anyone.
Rather, listen to their worries. You gan point out discrepancies with their world view and show your disapproval if they’re really bringing out the racist shit, but don’t try to sell them your ideology.
Also, remember that it takes time to change someone’s viewpoint. You need to be patient.
Rather, listen to their worries. You gan point out discrepancies with their world view and show your disapproval if they’re really bringing out the racist shit, but don’t try to sell them your ideology.
So the civility politics route the Dems have been trying for the past 40 years.
How’s that worked out?
So the civility politics route the Dems have been trying for the past 40 years.
Non-sequitur much?
In what way have the Dems ever listened to any non-millionaire?
Man, that is all the fucking Dems have done for longer than I’ve been alive. Ass-patting rural voters and telling them how valid their concerns are, and trying to compromise and show how very ‘reasonable’ we are.
You wanna track how the rural vote has trended since?
We’ve not increased our share by validating their basic positions and pointing out contradictions in the details that they’ll willfully forget a day fucking later.
Ah yes. Last conversation I had with one they insisted they saw a bus sized drone in the sky. If I’m rude or not improving the political landscape then lol oh well guess I’m not then.
Did it have FAA compliant lighting? It’s awful nice of the aliens to comply with our laws before arriving.
Great! Have fun while the situation gets worse!
The U.S. is a threat to everyone on the planet. You’re in this boat with us.
Yeah, I know. I just can’t do anything better to help yo^u other than post on the internet and organi’e locally.
If Trump voters could be convinced they wouldn’t have voted trump, so this doesn’t change my calculus.
If Trump voters could be convinced
Are you sure you’re actually in favor of democracy, if you have such a misanthropic worldview?
I have so far seen zero evidence that anything Trump does will convince his voters that he’s the evil shitstain he is, so what I’m not in favor of is the futility of trying to convince anyone, when 8 years of reality and headlines have failed to do the same. I have magas in my family and they will perform literally any gymnastics necessary to absolve Trump of guilt for anything he’s done.
So yeah, if basing my opinions off of the evidence I’m surrounded by daily makes me misanthropic, then sure, you can call me that if it makes you feel happy.
Sorry, I don’t think I’m interested in such moralistic political discussions where you constantly bring up how someone is “evil”.
That’s OK!
Are you sure you’re actually in favor of democracy, if you have such a misanthropic worldview?
Democracy, as the saying goes, is the worst system of government ever devised - except for all the others.
People are stupid, in every fucking system.
The difference is, in a democracy, you have to (theoretically, and depending on the health of the democratic system) get a massive percentage of very stupid or very malicious people to make stupid decisions on behalf of the polity, whereas in narrower forms of government, you only need a small percentage of very stupid or very malicious people who are well-placed.
Democracy is a safeguard, not an aegis, not a panacea. All systems of government are ultimately only as good as the people who comprise them; and while I’d sooner trust “The entire adult population” over “A self-selected cabal”, that does not mean the former will always make good, moral, sensible, or even self-interested decisions.
Fuck that, this is just another rendition of the centrist/both sides bad/fascist apologizer number. Everyone that voted for this deserves to be ridiculed and called out to face the reality that they have forced upon the rest of us. Maybe then the lesson will stick. We tried the polite way and millions of people spat in our face. We do not have to take the higher road.
I get the sinking feeling that a lot of Trump supporters are at a point where they simply won’t trust anything we tell them.
They’ve skillfully avoided the truth up to this point. They’ve drank enough kool-aid that they’ll remain resolute in their “rightness” through shitstorm after self-imposed shitstorm. It’s not about facts with them; it’s about their feels. Their feels tell them that they are right and everyone in their
cult“community” agrees, so they must be correct.The last thing that will convince them they were wrong, would be screamed realities from people they already don’t trust.
Name one person who was convinced to do something by being shamed. You’re bust making them double down.
Reading through this thread I understand the gist of your statement but you never said what you would recommend?
Materialist and power analysis. Trump does things because it suits him materially. Not cause he’s evil. So does Elon Musk. Ask what Trump has actually done for the Trump supporter.
Everything is going to shit in the US, and instead of doubling down on “how does renaming the Gulf of Mexico lower the prices of eggs?”, online libs keep complaining on how the vote turned out and that you gan’t convince MAGAs.
I guess that’s part of donvicts power: he causes outrage which stops effective organization against him, with everyone firefighting against his latest outrage, instead of remaining focused on his downfall.
Don’t forget what already worked. After his “muslim ban”, direct action did shut some airports down, which softened the blow.
Famously didn’t work for republicans! Oh wait.
How are the republicans a counterexamplex o.O
By being elected into power. Clearly, it worked for them.
What do you mean by “it”?
Going all-in on appealing to those who are already aligned with them or unaligned, and ignoring or degrading the opposition instead of trying to sway them.
So… how is that strategy going to help progressive politics, exactly? O.o
So… how is that strategy going to help progressive politics, exactly? O.o
You’re asking how choosing to focus on getting out the vote instead of appealing to opposition voters is going to help, in an electoral environment that saw 1/3 of the country say “I don’t care who wins”?
If you voted for either imperial candidate…
Go on bb. Say it with your whole chest. These ellipsis look bad on you. You believe it, say it. Tell us how fascists and liberals are the exact same thing. Go on. We are waiting.
Fascists and liberals are not the exact same thing. Liberals prefer to implement the final solution on a slightly slower timetable and in stages, while fascists are more inclined to just cut loose all undesirables as fast as possible.
IMHO, Liberals (in the American sense, rather than the pure ideology) change the rules to reduce and even remove viable choices, whilst Fascists just directly do the chosing for you.
In other words, Liberals take the posh, pressure-based path to constrain others so that they ultimatelly do what’s best for the Liberal leadership (or suffer if they don’t), whilst Fascists just use Force directly or at best with a thin layer of social acceptability in the form of Laws that make your not doing what they want illegal.
Because of the far more covert nature of the way Liberals force choices on others and the many layers than compose the system they use to do it, unlike with the straightforward lasso-on-the-neck of Fascists many people literally can’t see that they’re being corralled by Liberals into specific choices and think that with Liberals they’re free.
"The oppressed should work towards their own murder, in solidarity with all the other oppressed folk being murdered!
It won’t stop anyone from being murdered, but it’ll make those of us not in any danger feel really pure 😊"
I’m not having that argument again. I understand the position that they were equally bad, and I support the rights of folks who couldn’t vote for either of them because of that. But while I do acknowledge that US imperialism is not just a meme, I had to work with what I was given, and that was bad or less bad. I chose less bad.
I respect that others saw it differently and that’s all I have to say on the matter.
I understand the position that they were equally bad
I don’t. Every single day proves that over and over again. I understand being an idealistic young person with no practical experience, but in those situations the intelligent thing to do is to listen to people and not triple-down on the GRU playbook.
Those who are neither idealistic or young, who couldn’t be arsed to do the one thing that would have helped defeat fascism need to understand what a fuckup they are.
deleted by creator
I support the rights of folks who couldn’t vote for either of them because of that. But while I do acknowledge that US imperialism is not just a meme, I had to work with what I was given
Exceedingly well put, I don’t know why that simple little bit of understanding is so impossible for some Harris supporters
Thanks! This topic is a sticky one, it’s easy to get angry (and I have) when everyone has good intentions and those good intentions seem to conflict. I’ve probably been a jerk about it in the past, and in the moment I might be again in the future, but I try to see where folks are coming from when I can.
“It’s just another Voting Culture™”
