And that is the problem, your inclusion of that is no different from the right wing media that also manipulates the Overton window in discussions (in this case, in a negative way). And you also seem to miss that it looks like you are not checking your cites properly, seems that you are going for theGoogle Vomit way of debating.
This kinda fits with what HMHW said that a group with few adherents provides a stronger sense of identity. I don’t think he was saying it’s convenient to hold such a belief, but - to put it in terms used earlier - it’s a convenient way to decide whether someone is on your Christmas card list or not. Or perhaps whether they should be allowed to join a political party, or whether you would vote for them or stay home.
Do you believe marginalised people in the US would be no better off under a Clinton administration, then? You don’t think allying with people who share some, but not all of your goals is a good way to work towards achieving them?
…but if you want to discuss whether or not infighting hurts the “goals of the left”, then “what are the goals of the left” has to be a part of the conversation.
Well it would be relevant if the infrastructure for the route to Munich and Hamberg were substantially different. I was surprised in a local test between the bus, a car, the train and a bike that the bike was the fastest over a significant distance. That was because of the way that route was designed. Take another route and the train would have won. It can make every difference.
That depends on your goal, of course.
I said (bolding added):
To which you replied:
What’s that if not a claim that I knowingly said something false? I. e. that I lied? Do you believe I’m just confused about my values? That I just think I think these are important issues, but don’t actually think so?
[/QUOTE]
I answered this in my reply to DemonTree. I didn’t claim that you lied.
This is a pivot. I want a cite for your claim that “Identity constructions used to be set by your birth”.
It might make sense to you. But that doesn’t make sense to me. If you want to view this subject only through that lens you are never going to come to the point where you will understand where people on the other side of the argument are coming from. When I told you I was Maori that was to let you know that I have a completely different set of life experiences to you. That the way that I’m treated because of the colour of my skin may well be different to yours. You should have realised by now that we are approaching this subject from two very distinct frames of reference.
How did that farmers son identify himself all those year ago? Not all of our opinions and associations are just effects of our environment, of course not. But some, and I would argue that for many, we are much more likely to become products of our environment. This great cartoon by Toby Morris (on privilege) helps illustrate the point:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/sociology/social-mobility-historically-and-now)
Your environment contributes to shaping your identity.
Glossing over the details helps me get through life thank you very much.
LOL.
You don’t own the thread. You chose to respond.
But they **do **matter. You just don’t want to discuss it.
Nope. I’ve engaged you. End of story.
Football? Travel? I want real world examples. Real world cites.
They claim to see an issue. I’ve asked you for cites that this is an issue. This is your thread, this is the position you are defending, its your burden to bear, not mine. If it is an issue why are you struggling to find objective evidence of its existence?
Sometimes a summary dismissal will suffice.
What did Tim Lott say that got him “branded a misogynist, an Islamophobe and a Little Englander” on twitter? Because if you want to dig down and find out exactly what it was that this “in fighting” was all about then you need to bring that to the table. Maybe Tim Lott is a misogynist. Maybe he is an Islamophobe. Can you produce those tweets?
I think a reasonable person would dig deeper, the way that I’ve done, to see if they can substantiate whats been posted. I think an unreasonable person would just swallow up what they wrote as gospel.
What are your experiences?
My evidence is your evidence. I’ve read your cites. I’ve researched the authors, I’ve checked out some of their claims. I’ve asked you to provide evidence that infighting “hurts the left.” I’ve looked for evidence that infighting hurts the left. I can’t find any.
This is exactly what a person giving a lecture to a firefighter while the firefighter was trying to save your village would say.
Nope. What “I’m saying” is what I said.
It all depends on how you define ‘infighting.’ As you refuse to commit to specifics, the definition of infighting will adjust depending on context.
Lets look at Tim Lott. You’ve cited his article twice as an example of infighting. Lott is upset because he got called names on twitter. We don’t know the context. We don’t know what he said to provoke getting called names. So how can we even start to look at this case in a general context?
This approach doesn’t work for the marginalised. How can it? There are some voices from the left calling for transgender people to stop being activist for the next election. Worry about progress on the general issues. Worry about adapting to each specific instance later. But then “those specific instances” get ignored. The global approach by its very nature hurts those that need protection the most.
I think you just shouldn’t try.
This is the opposite of the global approach you literally just advocated.
I have, in previous responses.
You are really bad at this analogy thing.
Different goals require different approaches.
I’ve literally responded to almost everything you’ve said.
The cite doesn’t show this. The authors of the article claims that this is what the data shows.
Because the author makes it clear that a lot of the division is driven by a number of contributing factors. You cherry picked examples that fit your narrative, and ignored the many other factors that did not.
Among many other reasons, some people are simply racist. They vote for the people that will best defend their racist arses. It isn’t extraordinarily complicated. The AfD holds views they support. Whats so hard to understand?
I think its more than that: I visit http sites all the time.
Its not that significant. That’s just an example of academic writing. Its not an endorsement of those critics, ite merely a statement of fact.
Its relevant in context to the part of what I said that you deleted.
There are only so many hours in the day.
When [URL=“Gamergate (harassment campaign) - Wikipedia”]goobergate](If leftwingers like me are condemned as rightwing, then what’s left? | Tim Lott | The Guardian)started, the internet got flooded with people accusing Z$e Quinn of all sorts of crimes. She slept with developers for review scores. She abused her partner. “She ate out at 5 guys.” Every games forum I was part of had hundreds of people telling me how bad, how evil, how vicious this person was. Alice and Bob and Charlie were insistent that the elephant existed.
The internet was so flooded with misinformation it took me days to drill down and discover that none of this was true. But to this day Quinn still gets harrassed, those accusations don’t go away.
So I do my research. And if someone tells me its raining I’ll open up the window and look outside to check.
Because I keep asking for evidence from you, and you are unable to provide any?
The word “expert” is subjective. And some of the people in your cite have made this claim, but they haven’t provided any objective proof that it is.
Sometimes yes.
I’ll take option 4 thanks.
Why did you write your OP?
Its a question you need to be asking them.
This isn’t a burning building. Its a bunch of people with opinions on the internet. There are billions of people on the planet. You’ve provided a handful of cites? That isn’t that representative.
I’ve done both.
This is not an accurate summation of the thread.
…YMMV.
Of course they would.
90% of black women who voted in the last election voted for Clinton. They are already allying with people who share some, but not all of their goals. They aren’t fucking stupid. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t speak out on issues that are important to them. And if they do speak out: the reaction to them speaking out shouldn’t be to condemn them for “infighting” and then trying to shut them down. Looking at the candidates for the Democratic nominee it is likely it will go to someone who won’t have their best interests at heart. But I guarantee you they will show out in force regardless, and if the Dems do win it will be done because marginalised people came out in force. They have always done the “right” thing. And they will continue to do the right thing.
I admit that my phrasing was insensitive to these issues. I’m sorry if that caused any distress. I wasn’t in a frame of mind attuned to them; rather, I thought I could just quickly note a few examples, while making clear that I didn’t intend to disparage the issues. I should’ve used soccer team allegiances or another, less fraught, example. My point was merely that one shouldn’t use shorthand identifiers of whatever kind as a proxy for identifying members of your in- or out-group.
(And again, the point that one shouldn’t do that is independent of whether, for any given issue, people actually do that.)
So because of their political views, their opinion ought to be discounted?
And you seem to miss that it looks like you’re not actually debating, but rather, just throwing names of fallacies at people.
Discounted in the way of them setting up the discussion, point being that the phenomenon is there, but not as the extremists are framing it up.
Nope, you already acknowledged that you got burned by a dumb cite early, meaning that like in a goggle vomit you do want others to waste time by being blissfully unaware aware of the sources. I just pointed that you do continue to get burned.
Do you agree with HMHW that identities are more aligned with beliefs/values now, instead of demographics like in the past?
So you do think unifying and compromising is useful and beneficial, at least sometimes. And not voting can lead to a worse outcome than voting for the least-bad option. But it isn’t black women I hear accused of voting against their interests in America (and in some cases accused of being fucking stupid, too). I’d say there really is a problem with infighting on the left, whether it’s caused by threats to identity (and it isn’t necessarily the marginalised who feel threatened; the reverse seems more likely to me) or something else.
…thank-you.
…I wouldn’t necessarily say so.
I think that unifying and compromising is what marginalised people do all the fucking time. They do it not only because it is not only “useful and beneficial”, but because a lot of the time their lives are literally at stake. Unifying and compromising is what they do to survive. But the burden of unifying and compromising is nearly always put on marginalised people. Stuff like this from “the left”
Who is bearing the burden? And when transgender people and their allies pushed back against this, guess who got attacked by the Bernie Bros?
In many places in America a convicted felon cannot vote. In many places in America black people are purged from voter rolls, forcing them to go through increasingly complicated processes, often forcing them to take time (they can’t afford to take) off work. If these people voted it could result in a “less worse outcome.” But I’m not going to condemn them for sitting the last election out. This is where the principal of “allies” comes in. Its white people that need to step up here. They need to get out to vote themselves and they need to bring people along with them, they need to use their privilege to fight voter suppression, they need to stand up.
More importantly: if black people complain about something, if marginalised people stand up and say to fellow people on the monolithic left that “hey, this isn’t right, we shouldn’t be doing this” they shouldn’t be told to “shut up, sit down, you need to unify and compromise because we are better for you than the other guy, and you better know your place.” And if they continue to speak up don’t characterize that as infighting.
If someone like Tim Lott claims he got branded a misogynist on twitter, then Lott goes on to write an article called “If leftwingers like me are condemned as rightwing, then what’s left?” perhaps take a moment to think that maybe, just maybe, Lott could actually be a misogynist. (I don’t know if he is, I didn’t read his tweets) Misogyny isn’t just a thing on the right. Sometimes we have to take claims of “infighting” with a huge fucking grain of salt.
Every time you hear a pundit cry “we need to reach out to Trump’s base to win the next election” that’s a direct shot at black women and black voters. Black people have aligned with the “monolithic left” because the consequences of not aligning with it are monstrous. But some in the monolithic left are more than willing to throw black people under the metaphorical bus to try and get more votes from white people. This is a lot more complex than imagining a handful of “liberal voters” sitting on the couch going “I’m not going to vote this year.”
My challenge to you is the same as it is to Half Man Half Wit: prove it. Objectively. With specific examples and numbers to back up your case. Define what you mean by “infighting.”
I think there’s something to it. Families used to be the group you’d never abandon, but more and more I go online and see people talking about cutting off their relatives and saying their friends are their real family.
I don’t disagree, but you seemed to be arguing that it doesn’t matter if the left ends up disunited and divided. And there’s no reason to assume the responsibility falls only or mainly on the marginalised. If Bernie Bros were attacking their supposed allies and sitting the election out, doesn’t that mean they have a problem and need to do some compromising? Why weren’t they voting for the least bad option?
Uh, how so? Even if some of his base are motivated by racism, they also care about other issues and can be appealed to on those.
Not sure how I’d go about proving it. I was thinking of stuff like this. That’s definitely not helping the left’s chances in the upcoming election.
…sure, that’s your experience. I don’t live your life. I live in New Zealand. Whānauis important, and not just in Maori communities. The world is a very big place and I’m not really in the position to make big generalizations here. I do know what I see, and what I see doesn’t really fit what you see. But I concede that my personal viewpoint is not representative.
Nope. I’m arguing that its okay to disagree. Its okay to fight, its okay to have the occasional stoush. Arguing with my friend over what movie to see that evening doesn’t mean we are going to end up disunited and divided. It just means we have a disagreement.
But the OP wants to frame this as a general discussion. If we do that then I’m going to argue for the side of the marginalised, because if I didn’t (and you can see it happening in this very thread) then the viewpoint of the marginalised gets ignored.
Again: this goes towards my point. The OP wants to look at this through a global lens. What applies to the Bernie Bros applies to the marginalised. I don’t think that can work. And the way we’ve framed it here shows exactly why it wouldn’t work.
I’ve had debates with people on these boards who think its more important to stop pandering to black people and to focus only on the white people in the rust belt. Because they think that at the next election those are the only votes that matter. I’ve cited a Democratic spokesperson who thinks that the bathroom issue is simply a distraction. Of course they care about other issues. But they aren’t really the point: its the people “on the left” who decide what issues are important to fight for that matter.
Austin and Woodcock have walked away from the Labour Party. They believe that Corbyn is on the side of “extremists and in some cases antisemites and terrorists” and they both believe that people should be voting for Boris Johnson at the next election.
This is really pushing the boundaries of what I would call “infighting.” This isn’t infighting. Austin and Woodcock have defected. They aren’t in the party. They support a right-wing candidate. I’m sure Austin and Woodcock are well aware that by telling their supporters to “vote for the right” that they will not be helping the left’s chances at the next election. I strongly suspect, and please, by all means, if you think I’m wrong here please correct me, but I think that’s entirely the point.
Well, once more, I’ve been explicit that that’s not actually what I want to discuss, no.
Yes, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a generally better way. As you say, you were surprised that the bike won out—the reason for that is that that’s a deviation from the norm, because it does not usually win out. So, in general, car or train is faster, but there were additional circumstances relevant to that particular case that made the bike the better options. That neither means that we have to consider every route in isolation from every other, nor that without having given each route an individual appraisal, we can’t form any rational beliefs about which option would be the best one. These beliefs might turn out wrong in a given case—causing, as you note, surprise—but that doesn’t invalidate the general point.
Which doesn’t mean there’s nothing at all we can say, generally. Otherwise, why were you surprised that the bike was the fastest option? If the route were the sole determinant, you shouldn’t have any expectation that it wouldn’t be.
Please. I’m not going to go crying to the mods. But I claimed, ‘I believe x’, and you flat out said you didn’t believe I did. That’s claiming that I knowingly claimed a falsehood.
So do you think that’s just an unbridgeable gap between the two of us? That there’s no prospect at all to get to a point where that doesn’t matter?
So do you think that, today, there’s more people in the shoes of Richard than used to be the case in the past?
Again, I want to talk means of transportation. You want to talk infrastructure for given roads. That’s an important discussion, but a different one.
Perception is reality on matters of opinion, such as who you should vote for. I have, I think sufficiently, illustrated that lots of people share the impression that the dividedness on the left has negatively impacted it. Even you seem to, to some degree (see below).
The thing is, I read these articles, and others like it. I have no special reason not to trust the people who are writing them—not any more than I have not to trust climate scientists, for example (while recognizing that of course and case in the social sciences is going to be far less clear cut than the case for climate change). This is my evidence, my data; this is what I base my opinions on.
You’ve been claiming that this data is misleading, for some reason. But so far, I haven’t seen you actually bring forth any case as to how, and why, it is misleading, beyond your assertions that it is. So at best, you provide a conflicting data point; but even then, in total, the data still seems to heavily indicate that yes, factionalization on the left is real, and a problem.
It’s not always possible to dig deep on every issue, and it’s certainly not required to have mined to the very ground in order to validly hold an opinion on the matter. I’ve presented how I arrived at this opinion; you claim my opinion is wrong, and if I just ‘dug deeper’, I would find out how, and why. But you’ve failed to give me any reason why I should expect that your opinion should win out in the end.
Moreover, you can of course just carry on that way indefinitely. With the next spat of cites I produce, getting me accused of just continuing to ‘google vomit’ all over this thread, you can just say, no, that’s still not it, dig deeper. But at this point, I have zero reason to expect that digging deeper is going to turn up anything different than it has, so far.
So I’ll dig deeper, but I’ll do it in a different direction: what is it that makes you hold your opinion that the left isn’t hurt by factionalization? Why do you think all these people wrote so many wrong things?
Which claims have you checked out, and what did you find?
This is exactly what somebody who didn’t want to allow any discussion on how things are done best would say.
Yes, that’s what I said!
Are we now talking about what the meaning of ‘is’ is? Because infighting is a pretty clear term, I should’ve thought.
By comparing it to others, and seeing if there are similar issues. So basically, the same way we can put anything in a general context.
And this is what I’m talking about. Not about whether it’s right to stand up for the marginalized, but how this—despite being the right and good thing to do—may end up giving the right an unfair advantage, as they aren’t divided in the same way, due to their unification along overt characteristics. The question is, can we do something to reduce this advantage, or do we just have to take the right steamrolling all over us, because everything else would entail unacceptable moral compromise?
You’ve made that quite obvious, but I’m not gonna keel over just because I’m inconveniencing you.
Huh? No. I meant that if we find a general way of addressing the problem, then each specific issue will be helped by that, while if we only consider the issues in isolation, only one issue at a time can be addressed (trivially). If we figure out general principles on how to build reliable infrastructure, each instance of building the appropriate route from A to B will be helped by that, while if we try to figure everything out from scratch for every two points we’re trying to connect, we’ll never get done.
You’re really bad at pointing out what you think doesn’t fit about an analogy you criticize.
Then we’re lost.
LOL.
And evidently, you think it doesn’t. Why?
But of course I did. If there are factors A, B, C, and D that drive division, and I want to discuss A, while you’re claiming A doesn’t exist, then I’ll point out examples of A to show that yes, it does. Moreover, if something can be done about A, but not about B, C, and D, then the total amount of division should still be expected to go down.
Why there’s a rise of this at the moment. A constant can’t explain a variable, so if ‘some people are simply racist’ was the explanation for right-wing parties getting votes, then that, too, should’ve been a constant, yet it wasn’t. So either, there’s (for some reason) more racists now than there used to be, or (for some reason) those racists now feel more comfortable to act on their racist beliefs. And the (for some reason) is what I’m wondering about.
Of course, but this was a https link, with a cookie that didn’t prompt transmission via https, which hence was flagged as an attempt to bypass security measures. And again, the site’s clean according to VirusTotal.
And that statement of fact is merely what I was citing.
Presumably, but I asked how it was relevant in that context.
Yes, sometimes even agreement can be wrong. But you haven’t given me any reason to expect it to be in this case. To take this to an extreme, I have no idea how climate models work. But I do trust the experts that say that they predict catastrophic levels of warming. Now somebody on the internet tells me that no, they don’t. Those models are all just a sham. If I just were to go and check them, I’d find out myself. Dig deeper, they claim. Do you think that without any indication that this digging would turn anything up, it would be reasonable for me in this case to go to university, get a degree in meteorology, fire up a supercomputer and see for myself? Or do you think that there ought to be a better reason before I go invest those resources? There are, after all, only so many hours in a day.
I told you that. I’m worried about the global shift to the right, I read a book (in part) about the influence of divisiveness on the left, and there’s lots of people who I don’t have any reason not to trust who see the two to be connected.
So I need to provide cites from what, half the population of the planet?
Anyway, I don’t think we’re actually that far away from one another regarding infighting and its consequences. I think the difference is just that you see it as inevitable, the only way to prevent moral rot, while I’m not convinced of that. As you put it:
But this is exactly what I’m talking about. The problem is, that due to its nature as unified along the overt characteristics of race, gender, status and so on, the right doesn’t have these issues; as a result, it can avoid factionalization to a greater degree, and hence, appears stronger as a block—which in this case means, raking in more votes.
Now, I’m not saying that the marginalized should just get with the program in the hopes that maybe, something will change eventually; but I’m viewing this as a pragmatic issue—the factionalization that you agree does exist leads to a relative loss of votes against the right—while you see it as a moral one—it’s more important to step up for the marginalized than to rake in votes. The thing is, you see a conflict between the two—that anything one can do to alleviate the problem with getting votes—and hence, at least in the long term, stem the rise of the right, and thus head off society sliding in a direction where the marginalized will remain so, or become even more so—entails compromising on the moral issue. I’m just not convinced that this necessarily the case.
In other words, your answer to the questions in the OP:
Just seems to be, no, this is the way things are and must be, so yes, I am going about this the entirely wrong way. That may well be so. But I’m just afraid that if it’s the case that the left is intrinsically more fractured than the right, then this means that due to simple demographic force, the right is set to win, in the end. We’re both shocked by the rise of authoritarianism, the repeal of hard-won rights for the disenfranchised, and the rise of overt racism and nationalism around the world; and I’m afraid that if what you’re saying is true, and this is the only way the left can be, then there won’t be a way to stop this.
…okay. Real world “leftie” infighting popped up today. Lets see what people think.
Matthew Yglesias is a co-founder of the (generally regarded as) left-wing news site Vox. He posted this on twitter today.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1194759960686714881
Parker Molloy is a writer (seen in the Guardian, the NYT, Rolling Stone and the Daily Beast) and transgender activist. This was her response:
https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1194800378870685696
So points for discussion. Both Yglesias and Molloy fit under the umbrella that many would describe as “the left.”
-
Was Yglesias wrong to post his opinion?
-
Was Molloy wrong to respond in the way that she did?
-
Do you agree or disagree with the strategy proposed by Yglesias?
-
Is this the sort of infighting that people see as problematic?
-
If you think it is problematic, can you explain what you think the problem is?
-
Does this sort of infighting “hurt the cause?”
-
If you do think it hurts the cause, can you explain “what you think the cause is” here, and how exactly that cause is hurt? Is there one cause here, or two, or many?
-
What do you think the “correct” way for both parties to act here should have been to minimize the damage to the cause?
To answer my own questions:
-
Yglesias was correct to post his opinion. This is what he thinks, so why shouldn’t he post it? (I do believe there is a hint of trolling here: Yglesias has done that in the past. But I’ll take him at face value here in this instance)
-
Molloy was correct to respond in the way that she did. She is under no obligation to be polite. Especially as the sort of concessions that “the right” would likely to be after would affect causes that Molloy feel very strongly about.
-
I disagree strongly with the strategy proposed by Yglesias. I don’t think that compromise will help in any way at the next election. I don’t think it will win more votes, I don’t think it will win over Trump’s base. All it will do is grant them concessions (if they win) that they wouldn’t get if they weren’t offered to them (if they win.)
-
I don’t see this as problematic at all. This sort of debate needs to be out in the open, and not discussed in secret behind closed doors.
So because I don’t see this as problematic, I can stop there. I don’t see anything wrong with the way this has played out at all.
But I’m interested in seeing what other people think.
I live in the UK, on the opposite side of the world to you, so maybe it’s not surprising we’ve had different experiences. I do recall studies talking about, not identity exactly, but increasing isolation from community. I’ll have a look later if I get time, to see if there’s anything relevant.
And I think it depends on the level of disagreement and how it’s handled. No doubt some disagreement is healthy and prevents stagnation, but the current division in the UK Labour party is hurting them at the ballot box, the division over the EU in the Conservative party hurt them similarly in the past, and the disagreement over Brexit in the UK is seriously disuniting us and damaging the country.
Even if they vote for Trump? 
But I don’t see what’s wrong with using a global lens, or how arguing for the side of the marginalised necessitates immediately attacking the OP by doubting his honesty
That is very, very different to saying any attempt to reach out to Trump voters is ‘a direct shot at black women and black voters.’ Is your problem with reaching out at all, or with the way some pundits suggest going about it?
The fact they are endorsing Boris is on them, but Corbyn has been generally divisive ever since he became leader: Labour in crisis: shadow ministers resign in protests against Corbyn | Jeremy Corbyn | The Guardian
Or take thisrecent story. Communities threatening to switch their vote because the Labour party criticised a group they identify with. Only it doesn’t quite fit HMHW’s theory, because it’s a traditional national/religious sort of identity.
No.
No.
I disagree with it, generally, but I do see the point; it’s just that I think it needs to be attained differently (how, I don’t have a clear idea). The point, in my eyes, is that the larger issue is to stem the rising tight of right-wing extremism across the globe. If we fail to do so, marginalized people, on the whole, stand to loose more than if we were to succeed at the cost of making concessions, so it might seem that making concessions might be a good strategy.
But it’s neither clear that we will fail, nor that we will succeed upon making concessions—and if we’ve done the latter, and didn’t succeed, then we’ll have compromised on our values, and have nothing to show for it. Furthermore, a mere pragmatic calculus may not be appropriate for issues where the basic humanity of people, and whether it is recognized or denied, is on the line.
So how do we succeed without compromise? I think that’s essentially the question I wanted to raise in this thread.
It can be, yes. Not as in-fighting as such, but because the factionalization it entails means a lack of unified effort, while the right largely doesn’t face the same problems. So the right can present a unified face to its base, whereas the left doesn’t; thus, things like ‘Bernie or bust’ may lead to the loss of elections, and the rise of right-wing extremism.
This doesn’t mean that the in-fighting is intrinsically bad, or that I want for Parker Molloy to keep her outrage bottled up in the name of some nebulous ‘larger issues’; it’s just that there’s intrinsically a disparity between the left and the right, the more there is in-fighting on the left (and not on the right), and that this may be a reason while the right has found it easier to mobilize increasingly larger portions of its base.
See above.
It might not hurt the cause of the left directly, as such—might even be beneficial and healthy—but it may help the rise of the right, which hurts pretty much every cause on the left in the end. Even good things, even necessary things can have negative consequences—that doesn’t make them bad. If this in-fighting then is necessary, we need to find other ways to level the playing field, and hopefully more effectively stem the continuing shift to the right. If we can’t, then it may be that we do everything right, and loose—which then would be an unavoidable tragedy.
As I said, the cause—virtually every cause—is hurt by the rise of the right, by rolling back hard-won rights, by entrenching the institutionalization of the marginalization of minorities, and so on. So to the extent that one can define causes negatively, not letting that happen is ‘the cause’.
I don’t think the two parties should have done anything differently. But I think that the larger left, or even society as a whole, which we all, even the most despicable people, ultimately are unavoidably a part of, can possibly do things differently (read: do things in addition to this sort of in-fighting that abates its negative consequences, while not stifling anybody’s opinion). Perhaps through promoting cross-cutting cleavages, perhaps through emphasizing what unites us—which does not entail running roughshot over distinctions. The thing is, we can be united on one level, and divided on another, but my perception is that the focus these days is increasingly on what divides us, not on what unites us, and that’s a focus that benefits the right more than the left.
But in the end, no, I don’t have a ready-made solution for the problems that I see. But of course, one isn’t required to be able to solve an issue to point it out.
…of course. And we have people living in South Africa, and Ghana, and China, and Iceland, and Samoa, and Italy, and it shouldn’t surprise you that we all probably have different experiences as well.
Of course. But its really hard to characterize what is happening in the UK at the moment as mere “infighting.” Its almost full-blown-civil-war. Its bonkers. Its a story that involves dark money and Russian interference and disinformation campaigns and propaganda and corruption and alleged racism and anti-semitism. Compare that to the example that I provided in my case study which was a twitter fight between a couple of left-leaning journalists. How can we look at these two different stories through the same lens? This again goes to proving my point. You can’t look at this globally.
I didn’t attack the OP by doubting his honesty. I doubted his sincerity.
The stop pandering to part is the direct shot at black women and black voters. "We have the black vote already. We don’t need to listen to them. We need to listen to the white people in the rust belt, the ‘Trump base’, because those are the only votes that matter at the next election.
My problem is that its a bad strategy that isn’t likely to work, my problem is that many black people, who have to literally fight twice as hard as most white people to even get to the ballot box, are being taken for granted.
Of course its on them. But this isn’t “infighting.” They’ve left the Labour ship. When you are literally campaigning for the Tories you aren’t on “the left” any more.
This is not new news.
I don’t think this fits the theory at all. This isn’t leftist infighting. British Hindus are not a leftist group, they don’t have a leftist ideology. Many, maybe even most, might vote left. But that’s about as close as you get to the OP. And as an aside: IMHO the Labour Party were wrong to back down from the motion. Have some integrity for goodness sakes. Of course its a humanitarian crisis.
…this is a simple one. You get more votes then them. You destroy them at the ballot box.
Joe Walsh. Right wing conservative. Tea Party Activist. He claimed Obama was elected president because "he was a black man and articulate. Also claimed Obama was Muslim.
Ana Navarro-Cárdenas. Conservative. Republican Strategist. Devoted friend of John McCain.
The list goes on. Max Boot. Rick Perry. There are a huge number of voices on the right that are speaking out against the Trump administration. This is infighting. It arguably does hurt the base. And I would argue its bigger than anything you are seeing on the left. You don’t see this sort of regular daily condemnation of people on the left from people on the left. This is at a whole different level. I think the way you perceive this is entirely wrong.
I didn’t use a very specific example so that you could slip back into wishy-washy general stuff. We don’t need to do that. We can examine this example to see if we can find ways it actually fits with your theory. How could this example “help the rise of the right?” What is it, about this specific twitter fight, that would do this? Can you provide any examples of it actually happening as a result of this twitter fight?
There’s that word again. Perception. Its becoming apparent that this is all you have.
But we have a specific example here that you can see: that you claim might aid in the rise of the right. Why not look at this example, and tell me how things could have been done better?
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Well, I guess between this and the idea that the right is gaining ground because ‘some people simply are racist’, you’ve got this whole thing pretty figured out, then.
Seems like you really meant what you said about glossing over details…
I’m not saying that there’s no infighting on the right, but, frankly, given who’s in the driving seat there at the moment, it’s simply shocking to me that there isn’t more. Trump certainly is an outlier, and maybe sufficiently so to break the unity on the right. We can only hope so; but even if that happens, I think the left will just have gotten lucky, and complacency in the face of such an event will hurt its chances further down the road.
But honestly—do you think that sufficiently many Republicans will defect in an impeachment vote to remove Trump from office? Why do you think Trump felt he could ‘shoot somebody on fifth avenue’ without that adversely affecting his standing?
Right, so now you’re saying, yes, there’s infighting, and yes, it’s hurting the left, it’s just worse for the other guys. This is, of course, a dangerous stance—counting on the weakness of your opponent, rather than bolstering one’s own strength.
This is an entirely wrong-headed approach. You can neither support nor dismiss a general trend on the basis of single incidents. Unseasonal levels of snow in March don’t mean there’s no Climate Change; neither does experiencing the hottest day on record establish that there is. It’s the sort of misguided logic that makes somebody at the Roulette table loose all their money because surely, 27 is bound to come up any time now.
I can easily concoct some just-so story in this case. Joe Q Public reads this news, goes, ‘Ah well, those wacky leftists are at each other’s throats again’, and stays home for the next election. Jane Doe supports Parker Molloy, and as a consequence of this, chooses not to support a politician promoted by Matthew Yglesias on Vox.
But of course, I can’t prove that anything like that will happen as a reaction to this twitter spat. Nor would a proof like that actually do anything to help my argument—and neither would it dispel it, should this actually help the cause(s) of the left.
Sure. My perception. That of a couple of people in this thread. That of the writers of the articles I quoted—among them sociologists and life-long activists on the left. The thing is, in this sort of case, perception shapes reality—enough people perceive the left to be an ineffectual, fragmented mess incapable of concerted action, they’ll drop away from it. Perceptions win votes (or loose them), and, as you’ve so astutely observed, winning votes is how one wins in the political arena.
And again, if enough people perceive something, the reasonable null hypothesis isn’t any longer that they’re all just deceived, or dishonest. I perceive an elephant in the room, and Alice claims she perceives an elephant in the room, and Bob does, and Charlie does, and it’s no longer reasonable to believe there isn’t just simply one there—unless you’ve got good reasons for that.
I did already say that I don’t think either side should’ve done anything differently; it’s a matter of changing the climate within which this sort of thing occurs, from one focused on division to one emphasizing unity—I pointed to establishing cross-cutting cleavages as one measure to do so.
But more to the point, in the very paragraph you’re quoting, I’m saying that I don’t have ready-made solutions—so you turning around asking me, well, what are your solutions to this issue, strikes me as somewhat odd.
…that’s the thesaurus of that dictionary, not the definition. The definition, using your cite:
I have got it figured out. Thanks for noticing.
Says the guy who has posted a lot of words in the thread but very little of any substance.
It doesn’t shock me at all. The guy in the driving seat is allowing the rest of them to get everything they want to get done done.
The unity on the right isn’t the problem. There are more on the left than the right. The problem is the right have used tactics like voter suppression, gerrymandering, misinformation and propaganda to suppress the vote on the left. Its that that needs to be actively combated.
Nope. But that’s because impeachment won’t remove Trump from office. It is likely Trump will get impeached, because the Dems have the majority in the House. But Trump will only get removed if he gets convicted at trial in the Senate, and that isn’t going to happen.
But none of that matters because I never claimed that Republicans were going to defect in an impeachment vote.
What does this have to do with anything I said?
Nope. I’m spitballing. There are no objective measures here.
There is nothing dangerous about my stance. You don’t even know what “my stance” is. Making an observation is different from having “a stance.” I’m not counting on the weakness of the Republicans at all.
You cannot claim that there is a trend when the only evidence that a trend exists are you’re perceptions and the perceptions of a handful of people you found on the internet.
Here is just a fraction of the evidence for Climate Change. There is simply no comparison between the evidence that we have for Climate Change and the evidence for your proposition that “infighting on the left will hurt their cause”. You haven’t even defined “infighting” yet. You won’t commit to a definition of “cause.”
Of course. When you’ve taken an indefensible position that can’t be proven with objective evidence the only option you’ve got left is to make-something-up.
Concession accepted.
This proposition isn’t actually up for debate.
Yep. All you have is perception.
Nope. Perception shapes your narrative. Reality hasn’t changed.
Well maybe if you stopped promoting what is essentially a conspiracy theory now people will stop perceiving the left to be an ineffectual, fragmented mess incapable of concerted action.
Who is it in this thread that is spreading the perception the left to be an ineffectual, fragmented mess incapable of concerted action? Oh! That’s you! Just stop that already please, thank you very much.
No this isn’t the reasonable null hypothesis. Enough people perceived that Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll. That doesn’t mean that actually happened.
But we aren’t talking about elephants. Your analogy doesn’t work. We are talking about perceptions that can’t be backed up by objective evidence. Alice is in the room, she perceives an elephant in the room but she can’t see it, can’t smell it, can’t touch it, because the elephant isn’t actually there.
Sometimes unity isn’t the right thing to be striving for. When your opponent is actually implementing white supremacist policies it is probably the wrong time to be seeking compromise.
Because then what is the point of this thread? All you’ve done is point out something you perceive but can’t prove. You can’t tell us about the scope of the problem, you can’t show us any evidence that it causes harm, you can’t even use a real-world example to illustrate what harm might be caused. If you don’t have “ready made solutions” then you are allowed to . Or is that on your list of topics we aren’t allowed to discuss?