this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Chat

7893 readers
19 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 question 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kittenroar@beehaw.org 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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 like 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?

By the way, the Democratic party is not left-wing. It is right-wing. Please educate yourself.

Also, are we hopeless? Fuck no. Boycotts have been making progress. Noncompliance has accomplished a lot. Unionizing, if you can swing it, can accomplish a lot. Meshtastic can offer resiliant communications if Trump declares a national emergency. Democrats want you to panic. Leftists want you to organize.

[–] segabased@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] kittenroar@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] djsaskdja@reddthat.com 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] dawnglider@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

I suppose it must make the world a lot simpler if you assume the US Democratic and Republican parties represent the full range of beliefs that exist in the world, and anyone who doesn't neatly fit into those categories is simply lying.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

There are an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims being made in this thread, especially wrt what these supposed maga-bot/trolls all claim or do.

If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.

As it stands, however, making broad insinuations about the ill intentions of anyone who disagrees with you is not very Nice, and is certainly not Assuming Good Faith.

The mods here are very active, and very capable. We don't need people starting witch hunts here to "root out the fake Leftists", and based on OP and some others' reactions in this thread, that's clearly what's happening here.

[–] millie@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm specifically talking about an exploitable vector that can be taken advantage by any number of people or organizations, so it's not really about particular users. There are examples, to be sure, but pointing them out or accusing them of working for anyone in particular would be counter-productive. Not only would it distract from the subject at hand, but they can literally make an infinite number of sock-puppets so it doesn't really matter unless you feel like playing an absolutely exhausting and fruitless game of whack-a-mole.

I'm seeking to illustrate the behavioral pattern, the weakness that it exploits, and the damage it can do, which I expect to have much more efficacious results.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.

We don’t need people starting witch hunts here to “root out the fake Leftists”

These are contradictory statements.

I won’t identify anyone who is claimed to be an example, specifically because of the valid concern raised in the second quote. I will say that the two examples that come most clearly to mind for the proof requested in the first quote are two people who are in that category of “talks CONSTANTLY about how voting for Democrats would be a terrible thing that no self-respecting leftist would EVER do for any reason”, who also claimed to be American, who also made mistakes that no American would make. One of them used non-American characters to punctuate a number, and then when it was pointed out they got confused and didn’t understand what people were pointing out that was weird about their number. Another claimed that they employed a bunch of people and paid them all $250k per year (and, again, seemed not to understand that this was a wild thing to claim when people pointed it out ).

Is that proof positive that those people are working for the Russians? No, not really. Is it “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they are working for someone? Yes, to me. Certainly in conjunction with all the other circumstantial evidence about the way they behave. You use the standard straw man of “anyone who disagrees with you” being put in this category, but that is not at all what’s happening here. I disagree with people on Lemmy constantly and I very rarely think that this is what’s going on. However when I run into a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving, I start to think that the person might be a paid propaganda account.

But regardless of that, talking about the problem in general is surely okay. Your implicit threat to have the mods shut us all down is a waste of time. Talk to the mods (I am sure that some people have), tell them about the post, let them do what they’re doing to do. This is 100% an active and important problem on the Fediverse and talking about it is no kind of bad faith. I do actually, halfway, agree that singling out any particular user to accuse, could be a problem even if you’re extremely sure. But that’s not what this is.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But regardless of that, talking about the problem in general is surely okay.

This is you directly asserting that people in this post are part of OP's supposed group. This is and clearly never was just talking about the problem in the abstract.

These are contradictory statements.

I was not calling for OP to call people out, I was pointing out that their choosing not to do so meant that there was no way to repudiate the assertions. If someone who fits your supposed 'pattern' proves they're not in fact a bot/ troll/ AI/ etc, you can just claim they clearly weren't who you were talking about. It's a set up for a No True Scotsman argument.

You use the standard straw man of “anyone who disagrees with you” being put in this category, but that is not at all what’s happening here. I disagree with people on Lemmy constantly and I very rarely think that this is what’s going on. However when I run into a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving, I start to think that the person might be a paid propaganda account.

Which is all well and good to claim, except that both OP and you clearly think some of those people are in this thread, based on your own comments, and many of the people disagreeing with OP here, I haven't seen around much on BH, and none of their comments in here are doing the behaviors OP describes. That doesn't look to me like "a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving", it looks like you're absolutely just using this as a broad net to attack people who disagree with you.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is and clearly never was just talking about the problem in the abstract.

Sure it is. "There are people in these comments who are in the grouping I'm talking about" is quite similar to "there are people on Lemmy who are in the grouping I'm talking about." In both cases, we're talking about the problem without starting an unproductive and maybe-totally-wrong accusation against any single specific person.

none of their comments in here are doing the behaviors OP describes

Again, I don't really want to single out any specific person, since there's no way to be completely sure and there's so much overlap between someone who is doing propaganda and simply someone who is arguing in bad faith. And what's the point of starting the big argument that will surely ensue. I will say, though, that there is someone in these comments who I replied to who is exhibiting some of the behaviors OP described pretty much to a T.

That doesn’t look to me like “a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving”, it looks like you’re absolutely just using this as a broad net to attack people who disagree with you.

Look through my history. How many times (for whatever timeframe you have time and inclination for) have I disagreed with someone, and how many of those times have I chosen to "attack" them in this way?

I actually agree with some of the people who I believe are these accounts, on some things. They tend to be stridently pro-Palestinian for example, which I think is a way to give themselves cover. Actually one of the tells of those accounts is that they will sometimes accuse others of not being pro-Palestinian, and being rabidly pro-Israel, which as far as I can tell no one on Lemmy is. There are specific useful reasons why I think they are making that accusation, but if I were just doing this as a way of disagreeing with people, why would I take some person who is making a pro-Palestinian point which I completely agree with, and decide that they are a propaganda account just so I can "attack" the viewpoint I agree with? That doesn't make any sense. That's an example of what I'm talking about with "ways of behaving" that are separate from the viewpoint, without needing to accuse any specific person to explain myself.

I can't make you agree with OP, and of course you are not required to. But you seem to be extremely persistent, here, in interpreting something OP is saying which has some widespread agreement as obviously that they are saying some other, different thing.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ah, yet another long post by a white democrat who thinks they're a leftist and shouldn't be questioned.

EDIT: come join us while we make fun of you: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43337677

[–] Tortl@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago

Ah, yet another comment by a doomer wannabe Marxist that thinks giving up and letting the fascists kill everybody is preferable to working with people who only share 90% of your ideals

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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)?

EDIT: Reading some of the comments over here, and what the fuck. Automatically labeling people as bots or trolls for daring to commit the crime of 'wrongthink' is definitely dehumanizing and the most toxic I've seen beehaw be. It's fine to disagree, it's fine to choose not to engage, but making a post calling a certain somewhat niche political position out, having people such as myself try and explain that this position is more complicated, then going full on "nah I'm right, you're wrong, everyone who disagrees is now blocked and also not human or Russian/Chinese agents" is genuinely loser behavior to put it bluntly, especially on a "Chat" community where discussion is expected.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe we want politicians who will actively work for us, economically as well as socially.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

[–] millie@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds great. Vote them in.

I would love to see a push to the left in US politics and in the Democratic party. I voted for Sanders, and I think the kind of arguments he's been making consistently for decades would be a great perspective to see gain traction. The rallies he's been putting together with AOC and the responses he's gotten at town halls even in very red districts have been encouraging.

I fully support primarying Democrat politicians who fail to offer real solutions. 100% get them the hell out of office and replace them with people who will reconnect the party with the people and fight for affordable housing, medicare for all, and living wages. Let's chuck Schumer out on his ass.

But our approach needs to be viable. It won't happen by splitting the vote. That's just math. I don't like first past the post, and I'd love to get rid of it at the first available opportunity, but it's the system we're working with right now.

You can't play chess using only your knights because you like the way the horsey looks. You have to know what the pieces do and use them to their fullest extent. By all means, make your pawns into queens, but to do that you have to think about which moves you're actually capable of making on the board.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So here's the thing, on my state ballot last November, I had TVs corporate Democrat who votes with the Republicans half the time (the time it matters), and a new Dem who could or would not articulate a platform for or against anything. Bet I voted third.

[–] millie@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So run for office or find a candidate who might and help them get to that position.

Voting for a third party, unless it's in a small local election where they might actually have a shot, will do literally nothing but get us a Republican.

If you're still sitting here in April of 2025 and saying that the Democrats are the same as the Republicans, though? Get the hell out of our nest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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 implying X, 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.

[–] millie@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I had more I wanted to say on this topic when I first read it, but at the time I also had more energy. Had I not had other obligations, I would've written out my more detailed thoughts then. As it is, however, I'll have to settle for the (relative) shortform, as I find this thread exhausting from the outset and the sheer quantity of incredibly angry back-and-forth here has only made it worse.

To suffice the ideas of mine that I still remember, then:

  • I have a feeling that while you may not consider me specifically to be a "cuckoo," that this post was still partially aimed at people like myself, since I've spent a fair chunk of time arguing to the immense faults of the Democrat Party, some of which was in discussion with you.
  • If the above is true, I feel dehumanized and find this topic incredibly depressing.
  • Regardless of the above, I find jumping to assumptions of bad faith on the part of those with whom you disagree on this topic understandable, but needlessly conspiratorial.

But to end my comment, I'd like to point out an area on which you and I can find common ground: Your point of "Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism" suggests you feel that the people arguing against voting / the Democrat Party are doing a poor job of offering alternative solutions. On this, I agree. Solutions for that scenario are hard to come by and often complicated, and where people do have things to suggest a portion of them are very flawed; voting Green, not voting, and the occasional implicit suggestion for violence, etc. All of those have huge problems that I know I don't need to explain to you.

For that, all I can say is that I agree that leftists can do better and should. I've seen the good suggestions before. Things like mutual aid, education, organizing, joining events — all of these are very useful things that are significantly more important than one vote in a broken electoral system. Unfortunately, as you've noticed, frustrated and angry people tend to be bad at mentioning these things.

I only ask that you consider that these people are frustrated, angry, and restless, rather than actively fake.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NewDark@lemmings.world 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

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.
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] thief_of_names@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] millie@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)
  • 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] millie@beehaw.org -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›