I like how you simultaneously ignored my point while proving it.
And I’ll say it once more, with feeling, that my willingness to criticize lunatics regardless of where they fall on the political divide is not “inaction”. It’s the opposite of “inaction”. I really don’t understand this desperate need to stifle reasonable criticism in fear of it helping the wrong side. Bad ideas are bad on their own merits and no amount of pleading and cheerleading is going to make them better. What’s more, symbolically painting centrism (as if that’s even an ideologically pure position) as a (moral) chasm is obnoxious and wrong. It’s telling people that the only choice they have on any issue is to choose one side or the other. It’s why we have such deep political divisions in this country and around the world. You might find, if you are willing to try, accepting a point of view (such as mine) that is in 90% agreement with the progressive platform as being good enough, and stop demanding ideological purity. And if you simply can’t, go read some Dostoyevsky on the nature of man and about what happens when you set your sights on utopian ideals. That too has a long history worth reflecting on.
And I’ll say one more time, there is a big difference between criticizing bad ideas, whichever side they come from, and finding something to criticize, in the name of centrism. You keep putting words in people’s mouths, insisting that we are claiming that criticism of bad ideas is to be stifled if it comes from the left, when that is not what anyone has said.
But, as an example, you have decided, in the name of centrism, to dismiss the concerns of BLM, as a balancing act of dismissing the right’s insanity over CRT. That is the sort of chasm that one falls into when one seeks the center, as you seem to be insisting is the more enlightened way.
You are trying to make centrism into an ideologically pure position, by claiming that we are saying that one has to make a choice of one side or the other. You don’t have to, you are free to point out flaws in ideas or policies, without entirely dismissing the reasons those are advocated.
If we agree on 90%, does that mean that we are not allowed to criticize the 10% that you advocate for that we do not agree on? If so, then that is exactly what we are doing when we point out where we disagree. If not, then it is you that is having problems not accepting ideological purity.
If that is in fact all it is then all we have here is a relatively small difference of opinion around the margins of some issues and not others. I’m satisfied with that. My only objection, the only one I’ve ever really expressed, is when I’m being called out as a rube of right wing propaganda. I come to my opinions more honestly and deliberately than that.
Saying you disagree with his criticisms in one thing, but here you are instead saying you don’t believe they are genuine. Why is it so hard to believe someone might really have issues with what the left is doing?
I don’t think that you are being called out as a rube for right wing propaganda. However, when you agree with right wing propaganda, you are called out for that.
As do those on the left. We are not following the extremists, we do not need to agree with them on everything in order to remain “ideologically” pure. There is no religion that has to be followed.
My objection is when you claim that in order to be an “adult in the room”, you have to “skewer both ideologies”. This is not a criticism of policies or positions that are flawed, this is a blanket condemnation of an entire side.
Like I said, your dismissal of BLM’s concerns was not done with specifics as to their methods or strategies, but with a complete disregard for their entire motive for being. That doesn’t seem a deliberate position, but rather a knee jerk reaction towards something you see as balancing the extremism on the right.
If you have objections to the green new deal, then so do I. There are some good ideas, along with impractical aspirations, and some bad ideas in there. But, if you reject it based on the motives of trying to have a better economic and ecological policy, then you are once again, trying to find a center, rather than engage in productive criticism to make those ideas better.
No I am not, so stop putting words in my mouth.
Be less vague in your accusations, if you want an actual response.
This should really be her mantra.
You accused him of finding something to criticise in the name of centrism, and dismissing the concerns of BLM as a balancing act. What else does that mean except that you think his criticisms are motivated by some kind of desire for balance, rather than being something he genuinely cares about?
My current thinking on BLM is that it overstates the issue. NOT to say that the issue of systemic racism in law enforcement doesn’t exist - it does - but there are additional systemic issues in the black community that contribute to the problems in the black communities. This isn’t just me looking to shift blame. There is a small number of what I consider to be rational centrist black voices that are saying it, and they are not denying systemic racism. Their argument is compellingly, IMO. It’s at least worth hearing out and considering. Rejecting them out of hand as right wing extremism might also be considered a knee jerk reaction.
Now, I know you’re a well informed guy and I’m sure you’ll say that of course this is a more complicated issue than ACAB. But you know as well as I that the majority of people aren’t as well informed and the majority of people are easily influenced by large symbolic displays of protests that appeal to emotion more than reason. So I think it’s important not to trivialize the 10% differences that we have around causes we’re in 90% agreement about. The devil - more importantly, the effective solutions - are always in the details.
Reading myself back, I’m not entirely sure where I was heading with this sentence. Allow me to rephrase:
I think it’s important that while we may agree on 90% of progressive issues, or even 90% on any single issue, the 10% difference we may have isn’t necessarily based on a knee jerk reaction in search of balance.
Maybe there are issues in “the black community” (whatever that means – and of course, every community has some issues). But these issues are irrelevant when it comes to law enforcement mistreatment. For an outsider, they can only serve as fuel for BLM dismissers – “if they really cared about black lives, what about XYZ?” They can’t be repaired from the outside (and this goes for any community – communities are only repaired from the inside). Further, communities can’t be fully repaired even from the inside unless oppression from outside stops. So that’s why BLM is so important – for the “black community” to even have a chance of addressing each and every issue it might face, we need to stop the mistreatment from broader American society.
I don’t disagree with you and I’m not saying that BLM is “unimportant”. The protests were a seminal moment in American history.
Then what are they overstating?
JFC. I was going to let it go but you keep insisting on not taking “I agree” for an answer.
There is no “maybe” about it.
It’s important. But it’s not singularly important. Multiple things can and should be happening at once and that isn’t just something coming from a privileged white guy. John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes and others are quite vocal about it. Now, maybe their voices don’t count to your mind. But they don’t sound unreasonable to me.
It’s her trademark.
You are victim blaming and it’s not a good look.
So what are they overstating? What is BLM (and supporters) doing or saying that you think is wrong?
If you don’t want to talk about it, don’t make vague but still contrarian assertions like this.
There was a 25% rise in murders reported in the US last year. That may well have something to do with changes in law enforcement, besides Covid and the protests.
BLM started several years before last year, and the issue has been around much, much longer. This is a totally irrelevant data point.
I’ve stated what I think is BLM’s shortcoming and I’ve referenced the sources on which I based my opinion. Feel free to accuse me of being too vague if you want, but at least I’m not playing coy with “Maybe there are issues…”.