|
KVeezy3 posted:Right - people generally take 'common sense' to be a crystallization of natural reason in the narrative of historical progress. Though I do think it is relevant because it allows us to map out a bit of the terrain that has to be overcome. Aha, sorry. I misread your post. Please mentally replace "you're" with "society has been" in my previous post.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Well sure, no one's saying people shouldn't need convincing. But the point is that, during this dialogue, eventually you'd have to get to the proposed leftist solution which inherently involves leaving 'common sense' behind to take an ideological stand. The problem of progressivism is that, as you can see in this thread, its adherents want to fight on the grounds of being non-ideological and advancing "common sense reform." It's like trying to build a house on top of sand; the ideology is there, it's just unacknowledged and therefore its destructiveness to what progressives want to build on top of it is unaddressed. When progressives have an electoral victory and the first few bricks of the progressive agenda are laid, they fall apart, whether by lobbyists or conservative democrats intentionally or progressives themselves being insufficiently ambitious as to what's possible during the legislative drafting phase, which sabotages the programs being built by co-opting the "common sense" or "this is what's possible" framings that progressives love, or soon after when the progressive tide ebbs for a moment. Just look at Obamacare; a lot of progressives still point to it as some kind of victory even as medical debt and bankruptcy continues to rise, health outcomes continue to collapse, and the theoretical goal of the bill (to make healthcare affordable to everyone by forcing less risky people into the pool) has totally failed. The only measure of success that actually shows it to be a win (more people who technically have health insurance) was fabricated by insurance industry lobbyists! The problem progressives don't want to acknowledge is that they are fighting on ground from which they cannot win. You can't write a good healthcare program with the help of the insurance industry. You can't end racist, murderous policing with cops at the table. You can't pass a legitimate solution to climate change with input from Shell and Chevron. You can't fight COVID when the Chamber of Commerce gets a say. Our most pressing problems cannot by solved via a compromise with the incumbent players. The solutions are only attainable when the power of those incumbents is utterly broken. And progressivism, by failing to address that the liberal capitalist ideology it silently accepts will always empower those incumbents, implicitly limits itself to that kind of compromise and the resulting failure to achieve the ends that progressives will endlessly pursue but never reach. You might as well talk about ending the injustice of slavery without being willing to accept first that the economic and political power of slavers must be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:You might as well talk about ending the injustice of slavery without being willing to accept first that the economic and political power of slavers must be destroyed. Isn't that exactly what the approach was before the Civil War? It failed hard, then, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Isn't that exactly what the approach was before the Civil War? It failed hard, then, too. No, that was the approach during the Civil War. Also, another "progressive" has shed her mask now that its usefulness as a marketing tool has faded https://twitter.com/queeralamode/status/1333465105556672512
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
This is probably horribly naïve but right now I'm convinced that the best way forward is to destroy the two-party system and the best way to destroy the two-party system is Ranked Choice Voting initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:The problem of progressivism is that, as you can see in this thread, its adherents want to fight on the grounds of being non-ideological and advancing "common sense reform." It's like trying to build a house on top of sand; the ideology is there, it's just unacknowledged and therefore its destructiveness to what progressives want to build on top of it is unaddressed. When progressives have an electoral victory and the first few bricks of the progressive agenda are laid, they fall apart, whether by lobbyists or conservative democrats intentionally or progressives themselves being insufficiently ambitious as to what's possible during the legislative drafting phase, which sabotages the programs being built by co-opting the "common sense" or "this is what's possible" framings that progressives love, or soon after when the progressive tide ebbs for a moment. I feel like a major problem with the left is that once you go far enough left all energy for forward movement gets sucked away by people like this assuring you that trying to make things better is hopeless because Capitalism itself isn't being destroyed. And Capitalism itself is never going to be destroyed, because a better system to replace it doesn't actually exist in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:This is probably horribly naïve but right now I'm convinced that the best way forward is to destroy the two-party system and the best way to destroy the two-party system is Ranked Choice Voting initiatives. Doesn't ranked choice tend to favour compromise, centrist parties? (and therefore encourages a very small number of "big-tent" parties that are marginally acceptable to everyone). That's always how it's been viewed in Canada, where most folks advocate for proportional representation instead so that non-centrist viewpoints get a voice and there's fewer opportunities for majority governments with minimal checks on their power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Doesn't ranked choice tend to favour compromise, centrist parties? (and therefore encourages a very small number of "big-tent" parties that are marginally acceptable to everyone). That's always how it's been viewed in Canada, where most folks advocate for proportional representation instead so that non-centrist viewpoints get a voice and there's fewer opportunities for majority governments with minimal checks on their power. It's gotta be an improvement over our current "there's only two parties, and if you want to make a protest vote it's going to actively help the party that you hate most" system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I feel like a major problem with the left is that once you go far enough left all energy for forward movement gets sucked away by people like this assuring you that trying to make things better is hopeless because Capitalism itself isn't being destroyed. Making things better is entirely possible; spreading the labels of a content-free "movement" to as many wreckers and ambitious clout-chasers as possible in order to chase a triangulated electoral win that puts people who believe in nothing into power doesn't make things better. enki42 posted:Doesn't ranked choice tend to favour compromise, centrist parties? (and therefore encourages a very small number of "big-tent" parties that are marginally acceptable to everyone). That's always how it's been viewed in Canada, where most folks advocate for proportional representation instead so that non-centrist viewpoints get a voice and there's fewer opportunities for majority governments with minimal checks on their power. Ranked choice serves the very important job of allowing people to vote their conscience and for the guy who built the concentration camps simultaneously, knowing that the latter guy will get into power but they can proclaim loudly that they didn't put him at rank 1 and that makes them A Good Person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Ranked choice serves the very important job of allowing people to vote their conscience and for the guy who built the concentration camps simultaneously, knowing that the latter guy will get into power but they can proclaim loudly that they didn't put him at rank 1 and that makes them A Good Person. And then realising that enough people did that and now their conscience vote candidate got in and oh no they're building low income housing and lowering my fabrege property values It'll be good for tearing off a mask or two, if nothing else
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Somfin posted:And then realising that enough people did that and now their conscience vote candidate got in and oh no they're building low income housing and lowering my fabrege property values Yeah that's definitely how it's panned out in such leftist paradise states as *checks notes* Australia
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Yeah that's definitely how it's panned out in such leftist paradise states as *checks notes* Australia I'm not sure that you got the intended meaning from my post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Yeah that's definitely how it's panned out in such leftist paradise states as *checks notes* Australia Considering that Australia has one of the highest Inequality-Adjusted HDI scores on the planet, I'm not sure what point you were possibly trying to make here. In fact this post might possibly perfectly encapsulate the problem among some Leftists of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Oh no, we wouldn't want our country to go in the direction of Australia, a country with universal healthcare and which is consistently ranked as having some of the best quality of life ratings for its average citizens on earth. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Considering that Australia has one of the highest Inequality-Adjusted HDI scores on the planet, I'm not sure what point you were possibly trying to make here. I was making a joke that ranked choice voting has not given Australia the slightest pause in its pursuit of exclusionary policies against migrants and ethnic minorities and the indigenous but go off
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I was making a joke that ranked choice voting has not given Australia the slightest pause in its pursuit of exclusionary policies against migrants and ethnic minorities and the indigenous but go off Again, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Racist immigration policies are bad. So is letting thousands of people die without health coverage. In the United States, we have both. Unless you can make the argument that adopting ranked choice voting would somehow make the US more racist, it's not an argument against ranked choice voting. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 08:36
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Again, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Racist immigration policies are bad. So is letting thousands of people die without health coverage. In the United States, we have both. And you're attributing UHC to ranked choice voting here? e: Sucrose posted:Unless you can make the argument that adopting ranked choice voting would somehow make the US more racist, it's not an argument against ranked choice voting. I actually think rcv is more or less irrelevant to outcomes but in countries without it, it acts as one of those bug zapper policy ideas for wonky liberals to tilt at that serves to suck air out of the room for anything that might actually make someone's life better. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 08:37
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:And you're attributing UHC to ranked choice voting here? I attribute lack of it in the US to political corruption/strength of the health insurance lobby here, which is made easier by the two-party system. Of course I'm not saying that getting rid of the two-party system would rid the US of corruption, a loooot more work would need to be done; it would just be an improvement over the current system and a step in the right direction. The Oldest Man posted:I actually think rcv is more or less irrelevant to outcomes but in countries without it, it acts as one of those bug zapper policy ideas for wonky liberals to tilt at that serves to suck air out of the room for anything that might actually make someone's life better. Like what? I mean among policies that could actually be accomplished in the next 10-20 years. Also, advocating for ranked choice voting is definitely not "wonky." It's something that can actually be accomplished fairly quickly and easily through voter referendums so long as the political will is there. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I feel like a major problem with the left is that once you go far enough left all energy for forward movement gets sucked away by people like this assuring you that trying to make things better is hopeless because Capitalism itself isn't being destroyed. So what are you saying exactly? That the best that anyone can hope for is whatever can be passed in Congress right now? Is climate catastrophe simply a foregone conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Doesn't ranked choice tend to favour compromise, centrist parties? (and therefore encourages a very small number of "big-tent" parties that are marginally acceptable to everyone). That's always how it's been viewed in Canada, where most folks advocate for proportional representation instead so that non-centrist viewpoints get a voice and there's fewer opportunities for majority governments with minimal checks on their power. It favors centrist compromise GOVERNMENTS, but indirectly through a multiparty system. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure the main difference between ranked choice and proportional is that ranked choice preserves districts and is thus not perfectly proportional. So it's inferior, but in the specific context of the United States it would probably be more palatable than straight proportional because it wouldn't be as big a change and might actually be the only constitutional method The Oldest Man posted:Yeah that's definitely how it's panned out in such leftist paradise states as *checks notes* Australia Ranked choice with single member districts is different than with multimember districts, what's being proposed in the US is 3-5 member districts for the House, like in Ireland At the very least it would separate the Democratic Party into two or three distinct parties and make the kind of the "progressive" propaganda line being discussed in this thread impossible because Chuck Schumer and friends would be in an overtly center-right party and couldn't claim to be secret progressives icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It favors centrist compromise GOVERNMENTS, but indirectly through a multiparty system. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure the main difference between ranked choice and proportional is that ranked choice preserves districts and is thus not perfectly proportional. So it's inferior, but in the specific context of the United States it would probably be more palatable than straight proportional because it wouldn't be as big a change and might actually be the only constitutional method There's some proportional systems that maintain districts, like mixed member proportional, but that necessitates adding extra party list members that didn't get elected to districts, which I could see being a total clusterfuck of corruption in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Also, like, Australia is probably the closest comparison to the US and is a shithole, but is still a lot more well-functioning and less lovely than the US
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
There's no One Weird Trick where changing the voting method (or changing messaging or whatever) will cause the left to become ascendant, because such a thing does nothing to address the fundamental power relationships in our society. The only remotely plausible method is through developing a separate left-wing power-base (which unfortunately has been made next-to-impossible by governments/corporations - most people don't really have the chance to organize - or even develop solidarity - with other workers, and this trend is likely going to escalate further as the "gig economy" continues to expand). Obviously it'd be nice to have a better voting system, and I wouldn't oppose it, but it's not a solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Making perfect the enemy of the good is saying "Will breaking up the banks end racism?"'
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
Big Hubris posted:Making perfect the enemy of the good is saying "Will breaking up the banks end racism?"' What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
It's the catchphrase of a poster who's used it three times.Sucrose posted:I feel like a major problem with the left is that once you go far enough left all energy for forward movement gets sucked away by people like this assuring you that trying to make things better is hopeless because Capitalism itself isn't being destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 07:40
|
|
|
Big Hubris posted:It's the catchphrase of a poster who's used it three times. Posts like that are kind of disturbing, because they're essentially defining the impact of capitalism by the standard of living of the middle class in the world's wealthiest nations, while ignoring the fact that this standard is largely maintained through massive wealth extraction from the global south (and the whole issue of causing climate change). It's basically a view of capitalism that doesn't really account for all the harm it causes, because those things are mostly out of sight and out of mind (or at best viewed in the abstract). The particularly goofy thing about it is that most people with these opinions will agree about the reality of climate change. There's no need to speculate about the harm capitalism will cause - we're already looking at one of the most massive catastrophes in human history being caused by capitalism, but I don't think most people truly grasp this (to be honest, I think most Democrats/liberals just view it as a sort of culture war thing where they're in opposition to the conservatives who don't "believe science" - basically the same thing that's happened with COVID-19).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Posts like that are kind of disturbing, because they're essentially defining the impact of capitalism by the standard of living of the middle class in the world's wealthiest nations, while ignoring the fact that this standard is largely maintained through massive wealth extraction from the global south (and the whole issue of causing climate change). It's basically a view of capitalism that doesn't really account for all the harm it causes, because those things are mostly out of sight and out of mind (or at best viewed in the abstract). Progressives say "this is what's possible," drawing a box around the possible political outcomes to what is achievable by a politician doing nothing but saying "I agree with this," working their way through the political apparatus, and getting advertising funding from the usual entrenched suspects who have money to burn on advancing their political interests. That makes the range of possible outcomes basically, what we're doing now, what we're doing now with more shouted racism, or what we're doing now with less shouted racism. When that box excludes stuff like closing concentration camps, housing or feeding the destitute, protecting minorities from getting murdered by security forces, or constraining the ability to capital to immiserate more and more people every year, I mostly get it. Because to the average white progressive with a membership card for the PMC, those things are totally abstract, so you can negotiate them away and it doesn't really matter to you. Those objectives can be cast as unobtainable and forgotten when you go home at the end of the day. Don't let the enemy be the perfect of the good, right? At least the progressive option is saying they're against Nazis. What's truly baffling to me is how that same way of thinking is just as easily applied to an existential threat like climate change. In this case the perfect, that's the enemy of the good, is your future kids growing up in a world without a global tide of famine- and drought- driven war driving the rise of pseudo-states like ISIS, a never-ending flood of desperate refugees, and "extreme" weather events that seem more normal every year. It's your grand kids growing up without famine here in the US because the midwest and plains have been devastated by drought, an uninhabitable gulf coast, and fires that burned every forest on the west coast to ash before they were born. The Democratic party has implicitly accepted those outcomes with its policy platform and presidential nominee, and no amount of PMC money is going to save you from that poo poo. Progressivism is to accept the domain of possible outcomes to be what is possible and not possible under the current state of American electoralism, and under capitalism more broadly, even though that everything within that domain entails mass death on a scale that's basically unimaginable to a middle class white liberal within the next 50 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 09:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Also, like, Australia is probably the closest comparison to the US and is a shithole, but is still a lot more well-functioning and less lovely than the US If Australia is a shithole, where is not a shithole? Where offers a good example or a hint of what the vision should be? This isn’t necessarily directed at you, because I agree that the US is exceptionally bad in many ways and that even the better rated places in the world still have major problems. On a different note, I think the appeal of progressivism is it can offer some tangible-seeming outcomes to people. There are specific policy reforms that people can understand without having to wade into the entirely different vocabulary of many strains of leftism. I think most people would consider me a leftist, but goddamn if it wouldn’t be easier without the forays into abstraction and semantics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
Btw, the UK and Canada have first past the post and have a similar safety-net arrangement (or stronger) than Australia, I don't know why the voting system would be an important distinction beyond Australia is a Western country that isn't the US. I think the point is that the focus on voting systems is a way to get around actually addressing how a society works and why it is failing, "one weird trick." Also "don't let x be the enemy of the good" is a way of communicating that "there are problems but the system itself is good and reformable" .... which I don't think has born itself out in modern times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:... Right, the sanctimony behind the phrase, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", relies on an extremely advantageous framing of the situation. Liberals want to take all the credit for the 'lives they save', but refuse to take responsibility for a single life doomed in the process, which allows them to take a moral high ground. The fact that they get to keep their hands clean while their own situation remains fortuitous is conveniently left unacknowledged, when the truth is that that is what they cherish most of all as an unconditional requisite of their approval. They continue to use this rhetorical trick despite untrammeled technocratism in the last 30 years. In the latest iteration, now that the election is over and we're no longer useful, the Democratic party has already begun the predictable purging of leftist ideas. But it's the unreasonable leftists with no structural power who are preventing technocratism from reaching its highest potential. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Right, the sanctimony behind the phrase, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", relies on an extremely advantageous framing of the situation. Liberals want to take all the credit for the 'lives they save', but refuse to take responsibility for a single life doomed in the process, which allows them to take a moral high ground. The fact that they get to keep their hands clean while their own situation remains fortuitous is conveniently left unacknowledged, when the truth is that that is what they cherish most of all as an unconditional requisite of their approval. Progressives are the people out there actually getting poo poo done, while those further to the left sit and wax philosophical like this about how liberals “refuse to take responsibility for a single life doomed in the process” as if the actual alternative to liberalism in the real world was Leftism and not social-service-cutting conservatism. Out there in reality, progressives and liberals aren’t squaring off with Leftists over what bills get passed and what gets done, they’re squaring off with right-wing politicians who don’t care one iota about climate change and who would love to let the poor go hungry and cut health care funding to as many people as they can. Why Leftists take potshots at progressives rather than the entire half of the political divide that’s actively making things worse is beyond me. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
The reason it's not is because all the liberals want their point of view to be the only alternative, they don't want anything better. You don't get to claim that you're doing everyone a favour by being in the way of much better alternatives. And I hate to tell you but you're not doing so hot on being an alternative looking at the last few decades of your governance. Every time you get near power you do sweet gently caress all and then when you inevitably poo poo the bed and hand the right power again all you ever come out with is "you have to vote for us again because otherwise they'll get in" as if your miserable excuse for governance has nothing to do with the fact you keep losing to them. You are the ones making it worse, you squat atop the political desire for change like an overstuffed toad and do absolutely nothing with it, you perpetuate the wrongs that the right loves so much but you cringe and snivel while doing it as if that makes it better somehow, and then when you inevitably lose all you do is whine and whimper about how hard done by you are by the terrible left. You are nothing but one half of the same coin, they advance their cause and you defend it from those that would see it undone. There is no creature on the face of the earth more pathetic than a liberal. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The reason it's not is because all the liberals want their point of view to be the only alternative, they don't want anything better. Well, this is precisely why I want to end the two-party system in the US, so that we’re not stuck voting for the lovely party or the even-shittier party. The Democratic establishment might feel more pressure to actually serve the working class of the country if they were actually threatened by a third party, instead of knowing that everyone’s forever going to come crawling back to them because we have a voting system where attempting to vote for a third party just means helping the major party you least like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is no creature on the face of the earth more pathetic than a liberal. You are the epitome of what’s wrong with the far-left. One out of our two parties is currently infested with Nazis, but yes, it’s liberals who are the real threat to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Read it again and engage your brain. The liberals are the ones who cover for the far right, you may take it as somehow axiomatic that they are not part of the problem but I do not. Read, and think. Or don't and keep up this facile idea that we just need another liberal government and somehow this time it will do something other than nothing while handing power back to the right in a few years. The right project functions because of those elements in equal parts, one of them pushes forward, the other neutralizes the response, and you are so very good at doing that. For a political affiliation that so adores personal responsibility your kind are remarkably adept at ignoring responsibility for your failures in power. Something you absolutely have in common with your kindred across the aisle. I would respect you more if you acknowleded or even understood what it is you do. That is what is so pathetic, that you do not, you protest innocence, you claim you are doing us all a favour in your utter capitulation to the right. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Read it again and engage your brain. The liberals are the ones who cover for the far right, you may take it as somehow axiomatic that they are not part of the problem but I do not. Read, and think. Or don't and keep up this facile idea that we just need another liberal government and somehow this time it will do something other than nothing while handing power back to the right in a few years. Liberals don’t cover for the far-right, you’re just a wing-nut. Your type are never going to get into power, so what good does your sniping at the moderate left even do? Nothing. You live in a fantasy world where you think far-left ideas are going to catch on and get your type into power if only you win enough internet arguments. It’s never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
loving lol at the idea that anything more left than the liberals being "far left" and impossible. The idea that a government could do anything other than spin its wheels and wage war in the middle east! Utter fantasy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Liberals don’t cover for the far-right, you’re just a wing-nut. Your type are never going to get into power, so what good does your sniping at the moderate left even do? Nothing. The left almost got into power this year by their ideas, actually, until Obama called in a few favors to get that squashed. And then you guys spent most of the rest of the year sniping at the left figuratively over the internet and then literally during the BLM protests, so, ya know
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:You are the epitome of what’s wrong with the far-left. One out of our two parties is currently infested with Nazis, but yes, it’s liberals who are the real threat to humanity. One of them is infested with Nazis who are willing to be public about it, the other one is infested with people openly willing to work with Nazis in peaceful collaboration. Both of them are entirely saturated by vast, phenomenal, consequence-immune wealth. gently caress's sake, Biden told people to stay Republican but vote for him, if you're so sure the problem is just the Republicans you need to look into the effects of vocal support from public figures Somfin fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:loving lol at the idea that anything more left than the liberals being "far left" and impossible. The idea that a government could do anything other than spin its wheels and wage war in the middle east! Utter fantasy! One of the most ironic things is the way "nothing matters" is used as a pejorative on these forums, because there's really nothing more cynical and hopeless than the belief that anything outside of mainstream Democratic politics is impossible. The Oldest Man posted:When that box excludes stuff like closing concentration camps, housing or feeding the destitute, protecting minorities from getting murdered by security forces, or constraining the ability to capital to immiserate more and more people every year, I mostly get it. Because to the average white progressive with a membership card for the PMC, those things are totally abstract, so you can negotiate them away and it doesn't really matter to you. Those objectives can be cast as unobtainable and forgotten when you go home at the end of the day. Don't let the enemy be the perfect of the good, right? At least the progressive option is saying they're against Nazis. Regarding "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," I think the biggest issue is that the people who say this just tacitly accept everything harmful about the status quo and don't view those things as "active harm." So the end result is that they view "hurting a bunch of people (as long as it's marginally fewer than before)" as "helping people," because they don't really process everything else. You should focus on the people helped by the ACA or DACA, but you can't include the even greater number of people who had their lives ruined/ended through other actions/policies. The former matter, while the latter are written off as inevitable. Sucrose posted:Progressives are the people out there actually getting poo poo done, while those further to the left sit and wax philosophical like this about how liberals “refuse to take responsibility for a single life doomed in the process” as if the actual alternative to liberalism in the real world was Leftism and not social-service-cutting conservatism. The key misunderstanding here is that you seem to be under the impression that net positive progress occurs under Democrats, even if it might not be ideal. This is not the case. The overwhelming majority of harm (that becomes even more overwhelming if you decide to include climate change in the analysis) has bipartisan support, and Democratic administrations generally cause more harm than they help. The ACA may have saved ~20,000 lives, but it's doubtful that the benefits from it outweigh the harm caused by both foreign and immigration policy. Your perspective only makes sense if you ignore all the bad things. The Democratic Party is a right-wing political party. The most reasonable way to view our political system is that our political parties are just two different right-wing factions. The really important thing to understand here is that both the Republican and Democratic Party are equally opposed to most things the left wants. There is no question of degree here. They're both firmly opposed, and the same way both "moderate" Republicans and Trump are both firmly opposed. There's no left-right continuum where moving to the left on it makes someone more open to ideas further to the left. These people have their own ideologies that simply stand in opposition to that of the left. People have used the Trolley Problem to try and explain why the left is wrong, but a more accurate analogy is a Trolley Problem where both tracks have millions of people on them and you can't even tell which has more until an accounting is done after the fact. edit: Another way to look at our political system is that it's essentially a good cop/bad cop situation. Both generally agree on what they want to do to you, but people end up with an exaggerated perception of the difference between them due to a difference in rhetoric/tone. Climate change is the best example of this. There is zero meaningful difference between the parties on this; neither are willing to do anything. It's not the difference between "no solution" and "an insufficient solution" - it's the difference between spitting on a fire vs doing nothing. The Democratic position on climate change is closer to the Republican position than it is any remotely reasonable position, but people perceive it as being a greater distinction because they rhetorically acknowledge it. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 07:56
|
|