The incredible irony here being that just a couple of posts ago you were criticizing those who you thought had misrepresented what other people have said.
I have very obviously never claimed that there are no pro-russia leftists. I was saying that the list of claims that Der Trihs provided was horseshit. In fact this is at least the third time I’ve said it and you’ve chose to provide a cite for something completely different.
The only Ukraine claim in Der Trihs list is that “The people of Ukraine should be exterminated”.
MAGAs are roughly 25-30% of the whole population. (For simplicity’s sake everyone voting for Trump is a MAGA) — these people support the most repugnant reactionary shit imaginable. They support an actual felon who was leading an insurrection on national TV. He promises that if they vote for him they will never have to vote again.
Honestly, it’s because continuing the discussion has the tendency to equate powerless left wing cranks with the right wing cranks who are actually in charge of a major political party.
If only we could get the right wing cranks to just be annoying assholes, what a world it would be. You’re “but look, here’s a left wing influencer who likes Russia” and I can point to elected representatives who openly called for ethnic cleansing of America, and who will get re-elected this fall.
It’s too bad Wesley_Clark is getting annoyed by some of his friends, boo hoo.
Finkelstein’s position logically leads to the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine, much as occurred the last time the Russians were in control there (a fact that Finkelstein denies as part of his Soviet apologism).
It’s true that the positions noted by Der Trihs are only espoused by idiots online, not by “serious” far left politicians and thinkers like Finkelstein (they just support policies that logically lead to that outcome and deny that anyone but the Evil West would ever do such a thing).
Yeah, we saw Octoputz make that claim, and then we saw everyone - you guys, Der Trihs, Clark, me - criticize him for it. So I’m not sure that all this interference for people whose opinions we supposedly all find odious makes a lot of sense.
If only I had made this same point multiple times earlier in this thread! Oh wait, I did. And yet you feel the need to lecture me about it. Interesting.
No it doesn’t logically lead to this, this is disingenuous in the extreme.
A person could believe in the principle of a “just war” even if the country doing the “just” action has committed atrocities in the past; clearly a lot of Brits and Americans believe this. There are lots of reasons to criticize the views of those supporting a russian invasion without needing to exaggerate or put claims into people’s mouths.
I’ll state again that I am skeptical that the primary source of those claims was of things left-wingers were actually saying. Not that it even matters, but I’ll wager it is a list from a RW site, with just the “Hillary wears the skin of children” claim removed.
I mean, how many times have I asked for a cite for any of the claims and this place is filling with tumbleweed.
Why some folks can’t understand that the statements of sitting members of the Congress and the anonymous postings on obscure message boards are not equally probative escapes me…
Does this need a /s . . . I hope not.
What if you bring them up to say that they are “annoying” and specify a number of times that thankfully they are marginalized by the Left whereas the Right champions their equivalent? Are you still ‘implying they matter’?
Anyways, I’d argue that they DO matter, in that we should be aware of them so we can avoid doing what the Right did and letting them take over our party. We’re doing a great job of that so far, so I’m not particularly worried about it; we should keep up the good work.
So is the point that it’s wrong to be annoyed by or to criticize fringey whacky people on the Left, because… Why?
If they’re so fringe (which, mind you, I agree they are) why not just say “Yep, those people suck! Go us, for not letting them gain too big a platform!”?
By ‘some folks’, you mean Octoputz, right? Because he is literally the only one who hasn’t said, over and over, that the problem is a jillion times worse on the Right than on the Left. So I’m not sure who you think these “some folks” (the term implies more than one, and Octoputz has eight arms but remains a single person) who think that random people online are equivalent to sitting members of Congress are.
Holy crap, this is frustrating. That’s precisely my point!
And how many right wing people have posted in this thread? By my count, exactly one - Octoputz.
And yet, whenever anyone else - me, @Wesley_Clark, @Der_Trihs - dares to criticize these whackjob views, we have people jumping on us with lectures that only make sense if you’re trying to disabuse someone of these right wing misconceptions you’re talking about. Or we are accused of equating between the Left’s stain on one corner of the countertop to the Right’s using their kitchen to cook meth.
Why is it impossible to express frustration with the (unimportant, powerless, blah blah blah) extremists on the Left without being labeled a Right winger? Is it really so hard to conceive of the fact that someone could be Left or even Progressive while being annoyed with idiots?
Do you need me to link ten of my posts complaining about the mainstream Republican party and what it has become each time I complain about the fringes of the Left, just to establish my Leftie credentials?
I didn’t criticize Wesley_Clark for complaining, i suggested he find new friends. I supported Der_Trihs’ truthfulness. It’s you i am criticizing, for your relentless refrain of “they are real they are real” and for putting down those who challenge you.
I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about.
So you’re cool with Der Trihs telling you about some people, but you’re not cool with me saying “the people Der Trihs described exist” in response to someone insisting they don’t, because…
I’m not even gonna guess, I actually have no idea. It’s fucking baffling.
And I don’t know what you mean by ‘put down those that challenge me’ either. I have tried to patiently explain to people like Kimstu why I think their posts in response to Der Trihs or Clark could be interpreted as attacking those people for holding right wing views (which I thought was unfair because I saw no evidence that either of them holds right wing views).
Well I think some people are talking past each other because there is more than one topic here. I’ll try to summarize:
1) Is the “far left” as central and powerful in left-wing politics as the MAGA mob are in right-wing politics?
The answer is absolutely not, and I think everyone in this thread is agreed on this. So, I don’t know who misunderstood who first, but let’s park it: we’re all in agreement.
I will add though, that there was no harm done in stating this fact, because certainly the right spends a lot of time attempting to paint the left as ultra-marxist extremists, so it’s worth making sure we’re not going down that disinformation road.
2) Are the examples given by Der Trihs even real?
This is entirely on me; everyone else has been generous enough to assume that the examples given in that list are real, given that you can find some rando on the internet who believes anything.
But I don’t believe that’s a list of real interactions. I think it’s a BS list of “wacky things believed by the far left” and until I see a cite of any of them, I’m calling it horseshit.
3) Has Wesley been rude or disingenuous in his responses?
I don’t think anyone here has defended all of Wesley’s responses, even Babale has conceded that some of his posts have been disproportionate. So I don’t think there’s much to argue there either. The only point of contention seems to be whether Kimstu provoked it in part by responding to a point about the far left by saying that no progressives do those things…personally, I don’t see it.
That there are so few of them (none of which are in power) that wasting my time blathering about the price of rose hips in Patagonia makes more sense? That to point out the potential danger of baby raccoons in a shop full of rabid elephants seems kind of silly? *That pointing out that there are both sides to extremism when one side is overwhelmingly doing all of the real damage looks like a bad case of "Look! Over there!"ism * .
Pick one.
My perception, such as it is, is that the one thing extremists have in common is dogmatism. When you move inward from the left extreme, the dogmatism drops off abruptly and quickly, but coming in from the far right, it declines gradually. Thus, right-wing extremists will tend to hold sway over more of the right, as the dogma appears to be more far-reaching coming inward.