I want to draw attention to the elephant in the room.
Leading up to the election, and perhaps even more prominently now, we’ve been seeing droves of people on the internet displaying a series of traits in common.
- Claiming to be leftists
- Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
- Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
- Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
- Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
When you look at an aerial view of these behaviors in conjunction with one another, what they’re accomplishing is pretty plain to see, in my opinion. It’s a way of utilizing the moral scrupulousness of the left to cut our teeth out politically. We get so caught up in giving these arguments the benefit of the doubt and of making sure people who claim to be leftists have a platform that we’re missing ideological parasites in our midst.
This is not a good-faith discourse. This is not friendly disagreement. This is, largely, not even internal disagreement. It is infiltration, and it’s extremely effective.
Before attacking this argument as lacking proof, just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?
By refusing to ever question those who do nothing with their time in our spaces but try to drive a wedge between us, to take away our power and make us feel helpless and hopeless, we’re giving them exactly that vector. I am telling you, they are using it.
We need to stop letting them. We need to see it for what it is, get the word out, and remember, as the political left, how to use the tools that we have to change society. It starts with us between one another. It starts with what we do in the spaces that we inhabit. They know this, and it’s why they’re targeting us here.
Stop being an easy target. Stop feeding the cuckoo.
You must log in or register to comment.
None of this shit matters anymore jfc. There won’t be real elections in 2026. Stop drinking Democrat collaborator diarrhea and start preparing for mass street level resistance. In case it somehow isn’t glaringly obvious, when the mass protest encampments shut down cities the Democrats will be the ones telling people to go home and vote instead. And when Trump nationalizes the national guard and sends them in to break up the encampments at rifle point the Democrats will wring their hands and put out a milquetoast statement about how they support peaceful protest but that disruption can’t be tolerated. Were none of you alive yet in 2020? Did none of you get guns pointed at you by national guard sent in by Democratic governors?
The Democrats are sitting in congress making word-shaped noises that gesture at displeasure with the ongoing fascist coup. A Republican Nazi could walk around congress putting them down with a cattle gun and the remaining ones would smile tightly and put out a statement about how “this is a serious violation of democratic norms” and then vote in favor of the next Trump nominee. These people are collaborators. They will do nothing to stop the fascist coup because they don’t want to.
Whether or not there are propaganda accounts actively trying to disperse and confuse resistance is absolutely pertinent to what we do from here.
It’s definitely true that 95% of the Democrats haven’t really been doing shit now that the horrors have started, and that talking about the election and how Trump shouldn’t have won is kind of a lost cause now. The propaganda accounts I am more concerned with at this point are the ones going into /r/50501 and doxxing and confusing people, trying to drown out useful organization, generally trying to defeat anything that might oppose the fascists. I haven’t seen those ones on Lemmy too much although I’ve seen a few. And misleading people about the bigger picture “in politics” as opposed to out of politics is still certainly a problem. They’re both problems.
Ah, yet another long post by a white democrat who thinks they’re a leftist and shouldn’t be questioned.
EDIT: come join us while we make fun of you: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43337677
Ah, yet another comment by a doomer wannabe Marxist that thinks giving up and letting the fascists kill everybody is preferable to working with people who only share 90% of your ideals
First of all, Marxist is only an insult if you’re MAGA or right-wing, so way to tell on yourself. Second, I’m an anarchist, notice the instance. Third, democrats are a right-of-center party, you share at best maybe a third of my ideals. And forth, I don’t vote for people who sit at the table with literal nazis. That’s what your party is doing right now. So save the self-righteousness for when you lot aren’t actively working with fascists to end democracy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s like making banana bread. Everybody has their own recipe, but it’s still banana bread. The Trump administration is the continuation of the Biden administration. And America is an imperialist empire that rapes and pillages the world. We are also heading to a precipice, where we will be fooled into fighting another world war, war because of course blame it on the Muslims. Fascist are the useful idiots of empire, and sometimes fascists don’t realize their fascist. Neo-liberalism is a right-wing ideology, and that’s what we’ve been dealing with when it comes to the Democrats. Because they all take money from foreign powers, and they do not work on our behalf. They also use the intelligence department to divide this nation. since education has been under fire for so long, that most of the people in America don’t understand World War II or the world that they live in today. Russia defeated the Nazis, America came in to take the credit as they were also funding the Nazis, similar to what is happening in Ukraine today. But what is different is that communism is dead and what we have now is global capitalism. With our own capitalist class that fights amongst themselves for their interest while at the same time understanding their place in the hierarchy and keeping us all down and stupid. China is a capitalist country. Russia is a capitalist country. Liberals or the Democratic Party will try to rebrand themselves in order to keep voter engagement because that’s all it is. It’s a suggestion. It’s a temperature. But what I’ve seen is that voter turnout keeps getting smaller and smaller because people are starting to catch on …things will just get worse, I can guarantee. But you’ll just turn a blind eye, because you’re playing Tribalist Games. Red Team vs the Blue Team. It’s all the same, it’s still the same game. You should Google the imperialist Boomerang. What goes around comes around. What they do overseas will come back to you and me. I would think with the Snowden and Julian Assange leaks that would have woken up a lot of America, but America is… That.They’re literate, or they lack reading comprehension and the ability to pay attention. As somebody who is liberal arts educated, I really do think that America is one of the most servile nations in the world. Because we’ve been fat and happy, eating the spoils, well relative crumbs, but spoils of our imperialist wars. Unfortunately, I live in this country and I am struggling. I really want out. I do not identify with this culture and everyone around me seems crazy. And they lack the patience to listen. All I ask for you to do is listen. I plant seeds. Eventually, if you get enough of those, you have a garden of reality. We really do lack critical thinking skills. And then the sofist, Uno card, is something that just drives me mad. Either way, if I live or die, justice will be served, and Yankee gets what they deserve. Justice is coming, either by the nations of the world sick of your shit, or by your own hands. I mean, haven’t you figured it out yet? The whole good cop versus bad cop thing. You are the most gullible nation in the world. America is similar to North Korea. America is like North Korea with Disneyland. You’re in a theme park that you can’t afford and you can’t get out. It’s a small world after all.
Russia defeated the Nazis, America came in to take the credit as they were also funding the Nazis, similar to what is happening in Ukraine today.
I feel like at this point you’re just inviting someone to say something so you can pitch a fit about “how DARE you” and write more screeds to jam up the conversation that’s going on, and accuse the other people of being victims of propaganda.
Let’s just get a few facts out of the way:
- Genocide is the worst crime humanity is capable of
- The US has a direct hand in multiple genocides
- Record levels of homelessness in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
- Death from preventable illnesses in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
- Highest infant mortality in the western world in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
- Democrats are not interested in changing the status quo
- Republicans want a return to chattel slavery
- Neither party is willing to help us, nor will they ever allow us to vote third party by adding ranked choice or anything like that
- Therefore, our best bet to break the cycle is to collectively vote for, say, the green party
You think leftists are unrealistic for being disgusted with Democrats? The genocide was live streamed to the world. Did you not see any of it? Did it not move you?
By the way, the Democratic party is not left-wing. It is right-wing. Please educate yourself.
Also, are we hopeless? Fuck no. Boycotts have been making progress. Noncompliance has accomplished a lot. Unionizing, if you can swing it, can accomplish a lot. Meshtastic can offer resiliant communications if Trump declares a national emergency. Democrats want you to panic. Leftists want you to organize.
I was with you but then you said vote green?
If you’re going to vote, vote against the Republican party. If you want change from status quo, the ballot box isn’t where it will happen
In my case, I’m in a deep blue state. Otherwise I would grit my teeth and vote for the “lesser” evil. But we really do need a new party.
The current US voting system does not allow for a 3rd party to have a chance. If you want a new party, then you either need to replace one of the main two, or change the electoral rules.
From the outside, it doesn’t seem like either option is likely to happen peacefully, so things will likely need to get way much worse before they get any better.
Oh, I know. But imagine, if you will, if enough people collectively decided to vote 3rd party. It’s a minority of Americans who even vote at all. If a third party received the majority of votes, they would have to be put in office – hypothetically at least.
if enough people collectively decided to vote 3rd party.
Then it would either become the 1st/2nd party, or disappear into oblivion. If itvciukd became part of Congress, where it could look for alliances be… but based on current sentiment, it seems unlikely.
deleted by creator
I’m not an american (but anti-electoral nonetheless), and I do get the critique and think it is perfectly valid if one views things through liberal framework - vote for the lesser evil, minimize suffering, not voting is letting the bad candidate on getting the upper hand, etc.
However, this isn’t an objective position but an ideological one, as it operates within lesser-evilism, coalitionism within capitalist institutions and having a definition of “the left” that generalizes them to essentially having to be “pro-democracy somewhat progressive liberals”, and any deviation makes them into a troll or a right winger or something like that.
What is important to realize is that most leftists aren’t liberals - in fact, many leftists, particularly Marxists, view elections as:
-
A way to legitimize the class rule that leads into passivity among the working class who are being ruled over, essentially recognizing that this “tool that we are given” is just an illusion and leads to neutralization of worker power,
-
Enabling of ‘capitalist-tribalism’ in the form of “which capitalist manager do you support” which is seen in US through party loyalty and basically disarming the working class from realizing their own interests.
Essentially, their goal isn’t to just “vote for the lesser evil” or “achieve the maximum good through the means we’re given” but to abolish the system entirely, and electorialism/voting is counter-productive in that regard due to legitimizing effect that it has that I mentioned previously. This does go against the “liberal left” and their goals, and being on the same political wing does not automatically mean there’s an alliance or shared goals, nor does it mean that two positions aren’t going to have antagonistic goals.
Besides, why blame the left for the electoral failure who abstained from voting? Why not blame MAGA for voting in an enemy that goes against your interests (as in, people who have actually voted)?
EDIT: Reading some of the comments over here, and what the fuck. Automatically labeling people as bots or trolls for daring to commit the crime of ‘wrongthink’ is definitely dehumanizing and the most toxic I’ve seen beehaw be. It’s fine to disagree, it’s fine to choose not to engage, but making a post calling a certain somewhat niche political position out, having people such as myself try and explain that this position is more complicated, then going full on “nah I’m right, you’re wrong, everyone who disagrees is now blocked and also not human or Russian/Chinese agents” is genuinely loser behavior to put it bluntly, especially on a “Chat” community where discussion is expected.
There just isn’t that kind of leftist discourse in America. If there are communists here, I’ve never met one in real life, and I live in a very progressive region. Lemmy has been my first real exposure to anything further left of democratic socialism. I’m not sure why non-Americans are so continually surprised that we use “liberal” framework to discuss politics (that word means something completely different to us than it does to you). It would be great if the far right didn’t keep moving us to the right, but that’s the situation we live in. As capitalism fails, more people are waking up to the class struggle, but you can’t just change a whole country’s political paradigm overnight.
Honestly, this applies to EU too. There are still communists out there in real world (mostly found in university groups, labor unions or just some very niche book clubs), but way fewer than when compared to 20th century thanks to the efforts of red scare, the hellscape of “socialist” regimes, etc. There’s also the fact that if you want to be a communist, you need to go way out of your way to seek the theory and groups and actually study rather than having the ideology imposed onto you (but exceptions apply, like how Marxism-Leninism and Maoism can definitely be cultish).
Also, “liberal framework” in my comment was referring to viewing politics as choosing between good or bad, treating the system as being a fair, neutral arbiter, and it’s how majority view electorialism since that’s what is imposed onto us. Doesn’t really have to do anything with progressives being referred to as liberals in the US, but just taking liberal democracy at its face value.
I agree with the concept that electoral politics will not bring us the change we want but disagree with the notion that it isn’t beneficial to vote for lesser evil.
We exist in both paradigms. The worse evil does directly impact our lives, this isn’t debatable especially with Trump, so it makes sense to vote for lesser evil. Leftists are correct the lesser evil voting does not change the status quo (ratchet theory) but I view it as incorrect for leftists to moralize the act of voting to the point that if you vote you are not a leftist
It’s a tool and revolution is easier when you aren’t under threat of being sent to a concentration camp. These are issues of tactics not virtue
-
Happy International Worker’s Day. Every single leader of emancipatory movements in the history of labor rights would disagree with you, having fought and been very vocal against the different flavors of oppression in order to get the liberal concessions that you seem to cherish today. Hopefully if you participate, you might find some leftists celebrating in the crowd. Please don’t get too angry at them for not defending genociders, I’m sure a lot of them ended up voting for Kamala anyway, but at least they got the confirmation that even opposing genocide is too great a hurdle for them.
I’m tired but I guess I’ll still address some of the traits you identified:
Claiming to be leftists
I’m a leftist
Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
Okay that doesn’t sound like leftist behavior, you’re totally right. I just hope you don’t mean that “power possessed by the left” is the democratic party, but sure, that broadly sounds like liberals or feds.
Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
There’s a point to which you can push liberal concessions for damage control or for actually gaining some more concessions. I think criticizing voting is healthy since it’s still playing the capitalist’s game and a liberal “democracy” with almost no wiggle room anymore, but considering how little effort it takes to vote I’ll always advocate to both play their game and also assume that nothing will come out of it without actual pressure.
I’ve mostly seen people advocate for withholding their vote in the favor of some concession (please don’t do genocide), I’ve never seen someone say “don’t vote and also don’t do anything else”, but I’m sure they exist, you find all kinds of confused people online.
Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
Is genocide disqualifying for a political party or not? I’m asking you, specifically, if you think that a party that commits (funds, arms, protects, justifies, excuses, does constant propaganda for) a genocide in the face of their own atrocities, while actively silencing the voices within their own ranks that speak out, is worth defending? Again, I think the idea was to hopefully change the democratic party to the radical position of “anti genocide”. That failure is on them, not the people who threatened not to vote for them.
Not highlighting that issue is frankly criminal.
Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
Yeah that’s leftism, that’s always been leftism, but again I hope to god you don’t mean that “leftist political power” here represents the democratic party, so I’m gonna assume you mean more broadly what they call “purity politics” and constant division in the left. I think it’s fair to criticize people to the right of you, I’m to the right of anarchists and I welcome their criticism, even when I don’t agree with it. If I spent my time shitting on them I think they would be completely legitimate in calling me out for someone with ulterior motives, or a reactionary shithead.
Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
I want you to examine your own sentence just for a second. To disempower an attempt at legitimate engagement with the political system. Opposing genocide isn’t used as a moral cudgel against whatever 10 steps removed version of power this is (and I’m not criticizing the way you put it, quite the opposite), it’s used AGAINST GENOCIDE.
People are out in the streets and criticizing liberal complicity because we talk about GENOCIDE not some vague questionable US foreign policy.
Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
So that’s the democratic party, right? That’s why I’m confused because leftists are out in the street, even the most liberal ones with their “fight oligarchy” campaign, while the democrats are still out defending genocide, doing filibusters without a cause, and generally trailing so far behind the average population that it’s mind numbing. So I don’t know what you mean when you say “leftists”, because you seem to refer to two groups at the same time.
Anyway, voting goes both way, you can’t pretend to vote in a vacuum for the lesser evil without recognizing that you empower them and their genocidal endeavors.
And I’ll be a little more incisive: If you criticize a leftist of not caring about minorities (which I’ve seen a lot and is deeply ironic considering who did and didn’t vote for the dems) you open yourself to be criticized for having proudly voted and called on everyone else to vote for a party that does genocide, and having attacked the ones that tried to actually make a difference in shifting their position or using that moment to show what their true colors are.
and generally trailing so far behind the average population
I put it to you that this is a gerontocracy problem. It’s easy to fall behind where the general public is at when Congress is a grotesque take on Weekend at Bernie’s (no, not that Bernie, and yes, I’m aware of the irony).
I think that can often be a problem in political structures, but I don’t think this is the main issue. It might explain how their messaging is so terrible, but the republicans have clearly managed just fine and the average is almost exactly the same in both.
I think it’s primarily that they see support for Israel as an absolute necessity because it would (1) be another massive loss of support and political funding, and (2) a very difficult pill to swallow. Admitting to having supported a horrible genocide in full conscience and trying to convince that they have now learned their way might still look like a steeper hill to climb than the time-tested tradition of genocide denial.
It’d be great if it was the main issue though, I think you’re right in that at least they would have better messaging, unfortunately I don’t think the actual policies would be much different. In Europe for example fascist parties tend to be pretty young 🤷♂️
In Europe for example fascist parties tend to be pretty young
When you didn’t grow up with any exposure to people who lived through WWII, and then you’ve seen quality of life go down your entire life, it’s somewhat of a logical conclusion to go with “anything would be better than this.” Obviously not true, but the baseline is low.
There are an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims being made in this thread, especially wrt what these supposed maga-bot/trolls all claim or do.
If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.
As it stands, however, making broad insinuations about the ill intentions of anyone who disagrees with you is not very Nice, and is certainly not Assuming Good Faith.
The mods here are very active, and very capable. We don’t need people starting witch hunts here to “root out the fake Leftists”, and based on OP and some others’ reactions in this thread, that’s clearly what’s happening here.
I’m specifically talking about an exploitable vector that can be taken advantage by any number of people or organizations, so it’s not really about particular users. There are examples, to be sure, but pointing them out or accusing them of working for anyone in particular would be counter-productive. Not only would it distract from the subject at hand, but they can literally make an infinite number of sock-puppets so it doesn’t really matter unless you feel like playing an absolutely exhausting and fruitless game of whack-a-mole.
I’m seeking to illustrate the behavioral pattern, the weakness that it exploits, and the damage it can do, which I expect to have much more efficacious results.
This is not talking about an attack vector in the abstract. You and Philip directly asserted that users in this post are part of this group, and even went on a little self-congratulatory rabbit-hole trek deciding that they’re probably AI as well.
There are examples, to be sure, but pointing them out or accusing them of working for anyone in particular would be counter-productive.
You already did that, the second you asserted that some people here in this thread are part of this group. Hiding behind, “oh, I’ll say they’re here in this thread, which means their usernames are here to see and speculate upon, but I won’t explicitly name them in my comment, so I can pretend that this is only abstract discussion” is just being evasive.
I’m seeking to illustrate the behavioral pattern, the weakness that it exploits, and the damage it can do, which I expect to have much more efficacious results.
You’re using terms like “behavioral pattern” to lend your post an air of scientific truth, but this is literally nothing more than rank aspersion. The list of behavior you laid out is rife with strawman positions and imprecise, improvable propositions.
How precisely do you define “Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left”. “Most” is a vague, moving target. What qualifies as “dismantling… power possessed by the left”? That’s an assertion of outcome, so are you asserting that you have some evidence tying posts here to a reduction in Leftist political power? Obviously not, but it’s a useful claim to use for attacks since you’re now working off a much worse impact than just political disagreement.
You haven’t shown any damage, but you certainly seem happy to use the mere claim of damage and “abstract discussion”, to call for direct exclusion or expulsion of people from Left spaces.
That’s why this is a witch hunt, and not an appeal for moderation rule changes.
What this thread demonstrates to me,
notmore and more clearly, is:https://www.theroot.com/in-his-own-words-martin-luther-king-jr-on-white-privi-1831933703
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
It applies to third party voters and our valid criticisms of the Democratic party, as well.
If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.
We don’t need people starting witch hunts here to “root out the fake Leftists”
These are contradictory statements.
I won’t identify anyone who is claimed to be an example, specifically because of the valid concern raised in the second quote. I will say that the two examples that come most clearly to mind for the proof requested in the first quote are two people who are in that category of “talks CONSTANTLY about how voting for Democrats would be a terrible thing that no self-respecting leftist would EVER do for any reason”, who also claimed to be American, who also made mistakes that no American would make. One of them used non-American characters to punctuate a number, and then when it was pointed out they got confused and didn’t understand what people were pointing out that was weird about their number. Another claimed that they employed a bunch of people and paid them all $250k per year (and, again, seemed not to understand that this was a wild thing to claim when people pointed it out ).
Is that proof positive that those people are working for the Russians? No, not really. Is it “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they are working for someone? Yes, to me. Certainly in conjunction with all the other circumstantial evidence about the way they behave. You use the standard straw man of “anyone who disagrees with you” being put in this category, but that is not at all what’s happening here. I disagree with people on Lemmy constantly and I very rarely think that this is what’s going on. However when I run into a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving, I start to think that the person might be a paid propaganda account.
But regardless of that, talking about the problem in general is surely okay. Your implicit threat to have the mods shut us all down is a waste of time. Talk to the mods (I am sure that some people have), tell them about the post, let them do what they’re doing to do. This is 100% an active and important problem on the Fediverse and talking about it is no kind of bad faith. I do actually, halfway, agree that singling out any particular user to accuse, could be a problem even if you’re extremely sure. But that’s not what this is.
But regardless of that, talking about the problem in general is surely okay.
This is you directly asserting that people in this post are part of OP’s supposed group. This is and clearly never was just talking about the problem in the abstract.
These are contradictory statements.
I was not calling for OP to call people out, I was pointing out that their choosing not to do so meant that there was no way to repudiate the assertions. If someone who fits your supposed ‘pattern’ proves they’re not in fact a bot/ troll/ AI/ etc, you can just claim they clearly weren’t who you were talking about. It’s a set up for a No True Scotsman argument.
You use the standard straw man of “anyone who disagrees with you” being put in this category, but that is not at all what’s happening here. I disagree with people on Lemmy constantly and I very rarely think that this is what’s going on. However when I run into a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving, I start to think that the person might be a paid propaganda account.
Which is all well and good to claim, except that both OP and you clearly think some of those people are in this thread, based on your own comments, and many of the people disagreeing with OP here, I haven’t seen around much on BH, and none of their comments in here are doing the behaviors OP describes. That doesn’t look to me like “a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving”, it looks like you’re absolutely just using this as a broad net to attack people who disagree with you.
This is and clearly never was just talking about the problem in the abstract.
Sure it is. “There are people in these comments who are in the grouping I’m talking about” is quite similar to “there are people on Lemmy who are in the grouping I’m talking about.” In both cases, we’re talking about the problem without starting an unproductive and maybe-totally-wrong accusation against any single specific person.
none of their comments in here are doing the behaviors OP describes
Again, I don’t really want to single out any specific person, since there’s no way to be completely sure and there’s so much overlap between someone who is doing propaganda and simply someone who is arguing in bad faith. And what’s the point of starting the big argument that will surely ensue. I will say, though, that there is someone in these comments who I replied to who is exhibiting some of the behaviors OP described pretty much to a T.
That doesn’t look to me like “a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving”, it looks like you’re absolutely just using this as a broad net to attack people who disagree with you.
Look through my history. How many times (for whatever timeframe you have time and inclination for) have I disagreed with someone, and how many of those times have I chosen to “attack” them in this way?
I actually agree with some of the people who I believe are these accounts, on some things. They tend to be stridently pro-Palestinian for example, which I think is a way to give themselves cover. Actually one of the tells of those accounts is that they will sometimes accuse others of not being pro-Palestinian, and being rabidly pro-Israel, which as far as I can tell no one on Lemmy is. There are specific useful reasons why I think they are making that accusation, but if I were just doing this as a way of disagreeing with people, why would I take some person who is making a pro-Palestinian point which I completely agree with, and decide that they are a propaganda account just so I can “attack” the viewpoint I agree with? That doesn’t make any sense. That’s an example of what I’m talking about with “ways of behaving” that are separate from the viewpoint, without needing to accuse any specific person to explain myself.
I can’t make you agree with OP, and of course you are not required to. But you seem to be extremely persistent, here, in interpreting something OP is saying which has some widespread agreement as obviously that they are saying some other, different thing.
So now you’ve shifted from “you got them riled up”, to “there’s one specific person in these comments”. Thank you for proving my point about moving targets.
And before you try to claim you were using ‘them’ in the singular, your next comment was “They all speak sort of similarly to each other, too.”.
“There are people in these comments who are in the grouping I’m talking about” is quite similar to “there are people on Lemmy…"
“There are people in this room who are bad” is quite similar to “there are people in this country…”
Look through my history. How many times (for whatever timeframe you have time and inclination for) have I disagreed with someone, and how many of those times have I chosen to “attack” them in this way?
This is a red herring. OP is calling for people to exclude and block in order to box out political disagreements from being visible, not respond with attacking comments. I can’t see your blocklist, so I can’t see who you are ‘attacking’ in this way.
But you seem to be extremely persistent, here, in interpreting something OP is saying which has some widespread agreement as obviously that they are saying some other, different thing.
You’ve run this line with me before, and against others (including in this thread). What exactly that OP said did I misrepresent?
So now you’ve shifted from “you got them riled up”, to “there’s one specific person in these comments”.
…
Surely you can see there is not a contradiction between “there are elephants in this room” and “let’s talk about one specific elephant in this room”?
“There are people in this room who are bad”
Dude, that’s how I see it. Sorry if that upsets you. Not sure what else I can say about it.
OP is calling for people to exclude and block in order to box out political disagreements from being visible, not respond with attacking comments.
I’m not OP. I actually don’t think blocking them is a good idea. I think disagreeing with them in a particular way, and talking about the problem in general to spread awareness, is the right answer.
As I keep repeating, the politics or the substance of the disagreement has nothing to do with it. It’s to do with a particular argumentation style.
I actually think you could make certain rules for communities that had nothing to do with calling out propaganda accounts, that would do quite a lot to address this problem, simply because the accounts I’m thinking of depend so heavily on certain types of bad-faith behaviors that are problems regardless of who’s doing them or why.
Would it make you more comfortable if I made a separate post calling out particular types of behavior that I think are a real problem, and then we could talk about that without needing to accuse anyone of doing it because they are propaganda? I can do that. That actually might be a better way to go, because there are surely non-propaganda accounts which would be in that category which we should be addressing, and then there is no risk of someone being “caught up in the net” so to speak when they are genuinely not doing propaganda.
What exactly that OP said did I misrepresent?
You said, more or less, that the issue is boxing out particular viewpoints. OP is clearly talking about behaviors and motivations (murky as that second one is to intuit), which is different. That’s the core of the misrepresentation.
Surely you can see there is not a contradiction between “there are elephants in this room” and “let’s talk about one specific elephant in this room”?
Dude, that’s how I see it. Sorry if that upsets you. Not sure what else I can say about it.
I’m not OP. I actually don’t think blocking them is a good idea. I think disagreeing with them in a particular way, and talking about the problem in general to spread awareness, is the right answer.
The problem is that all of these work together. You’re in OP’s post, agreeing with OP, making assertions that you see these ‘behaviors’, while never once previously disagreeing with OP’s remedy. Severing out of a key aspect of their post, in one comment, at the bottom of a long comment chain, while only expressing agreement elsewhere? I think it’s fair for me to say you are boosting OP’s position.
…calling out particular types of behavior that I think are a real problem, and then we could talk about that without needing to accuse anyone of doing it because they are propaganda?.. That actually might be a better way to go, because there are surely non-propaganda accounts which would be in that category which we should be addressing, and then there is no risk of someone being “caught up in the net” so to speak when they are genuinely not doing propaganda.
Yes, that would have been a good route, rather than just agreeing with OP and talking evasively about fellow commenters being bad.
You said, more or less, that the issue is boxing out particular viewpoints. OP is clearly talking about behaviors and motivations (murky as that second one is to intuit), which is different. That’s the core of the misrepresentation.
No, OP is most definitely attacking specific positions, not just behaviors. Here’s a position-agnostic version of their list:
- Claiming to be part of the target group
- Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the target group
- Encouraging others not to vote or to vote for alternative candidates
- Highlighting issues with the target group as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the opposing group
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending their political power by claiming they are not true group members and that the attacker is “an actual member” of the group
- Using the group’s worst policies as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the parent political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
These are generic behaviors that would make the post not specifically about a particular group of people that OP has an issue with.
The dead giveaway is the one I bolded, because OP’s version is specifying the Party itself, not simply the Left end of the political spectrum.
“Highlighting issues with Socialism as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Democratic party”, for example, would run afoul of my “behavior-only”, version, but not OP’s position-specific version, so the only logical conclusion (which the rest of their comments definitely support) is that OP would in fact not have an issue with the behavior in that instance.
I think @Thevenin has the right of this issue in both of their comments: https://beehaw.org/comment/4660421
I don’t believe doomer trolls are right-wing plants (though I acknowledge it’s a potential avenue of attack in the future). I don’t think they usually have ulterior accelerationist motives (though I have spoken with a few). I think for the most part, they’re just people who’ve given up, or otherwise mistaken cynicism for maturity, and seeing anyone else expressing optimism or trying to organize real-world resistance just pisses them off.
Side note: after our “discussion” a few weeks back, I went and read some of the interviews David Hogg has given since his Vice Chair win, and I’m pretty excited for how he’s talking about changing the DNC!
What’s your reaction to these parts?:
I will say that the two examples that come most clearly to mind for the proof requested in the first quote are two people who are in that category of “talks CONSTANTLY about how voting for Democrats would be a terrible thing that no self-respecting leftist would EVER do for any reason”, who also claimed to be American, who also made mistakes that no American would make. One of them used non-American characters to punctuate a number, and then when it was pointed out they got confused and didn’t understand what people were pointing out that was weird about their number. Another claimed that they employed a bunch of people and paid them all $250k per year (and, again, seemed not to understand that this was a wild thing to claim when people pointed it out).
Actually one of the tells of those accounts is that they will sometimes accuse others of not being pro-Palestinian, and being rabidly pro-Israel, which as far as I can tell no one on Lemmy is. There are specific useful reasons why I think they are making that accusation, but if I were just doing this as a way of disagreeing with people, why would I take some person who is making a pro-Palestinian point which I completely agree with, and decide that they are a propaganda account just so I can “attack” the viewpoint I agree with?
I’m glad I went back through this post and found this, because this part:
Severing out of a key aspect of their post, in one comment, at the bottom of a long comment chain, while only expressing agreement elsewhere?
Is exactly what happened to me with this user, right up until yesterday. He kept asserting something I disagreed with, to which I responded in detail, and then they’d explicitly say “i agree 100% why are you so upset?”, while reiterating nearly the same point but with some pretty important distinctions. It went back and forth for far longer than I care to admit, and then when I finally put a fine-enough point on it they disengaged with ‘aren’t I allowed to disagree?’ as if he hadn’t been repeatedly expressing nothing but agreement.
It’s been a while since I got baited like that, but if there were a agnostic behavior online I thought needed to be banned, it’d be this one exactly.
Unbelievably enraging, but also a bit insidious because to the outside observer it looks like they actually are in agreement, and then they go on to completely rewrite the perspective to match theirs as if it’s the no-brainer position (see? look, we’re agreeing). It is some absurd postmodern contemporary version of MLK’s white moderate.
I 100% agree with this post. I do believe many of these attackers are sincere, but that it’s time to recognize it doesn’t matter and the end effect is the same as if they had acted in bad faith.
They give permission to be cynical to the less informed who might otherwise feel guilt to support one candidate or the other. They create an argument that no one needs to pick a side, which a lot of people take comfort in because our politics are so divisive and polarizing that many don’t want to wade into them if they can stay above the fray.
The message in the 2024 election should have been “Biden has been great, if you think he was bad you don’t realize what he’s had to deal with caused by Trump and the pandemic and the not-entirely real Democratic majority in the Senate which includes two turn-coats. His only issue is he’s old so let’s go with Harris.” That’s all. But that kind of messaging was never possible because most of the left wanted to always frame things by starting with their laundry-list of all the things they didn’t like about Biden to prove their independent thinker bona-fides, and then circle around and say “BUT here’s the thing-” which is lousy messaging.
Even today, when it’s clear Biden fixed the economy and passed a ton of great legislation we can’t frame the discussion as “Biden was great and now Trump has ruined the economy and defunded all these programs that were working” because people still want to start by crapping on the Democrats and sabotaging their own case. It’s a great plan if the goal is to have the left perform weaker than they should have in all future debates and elections.
EDIT: This is my first post on this platform, so when I say I see people on the left doing this I’m talking about other places I frequent like Reddit, Mastodon and BlueSky.
I like to point out that Frederick Douglas worked for Lincoln even when Lincoln was not running on ending slavery.
It’s amazing how many people on the ‘Left’ think that Douglas was a traitor to his principles.
When the bring out the MLK letter from Birmingham Jail, I point out that King never explicitly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, even though one of his most important aides was gay. Suddenly, understanding the historic situation becomes important.
Misdirection is a good one too! You’re off topic m8
Douglas spent the majority of Lincoln’s presidency mercilessly and publicly attacking him - claiming he was ‘working for him’ is not only fairly disingenuous but an extremely odd way to characterize their relationship
Idk what your point is with LfB but that letter absolutely slaps.
He attacked Lincoln after helping him get elected. Almost as if a War breaking out changed things.
… You have that backwards. Edit: it’s possible that you’re referring to Lincoln’s campaign for reelection, but that was still 4 years after the start of the civil war.
If you’re actively curious and not just using this selectively to support your own stances on current events, here’s a pretty good resource that describes the bigger picture of their relationship
Douglass opposed Lincoln both when he was a candidate and through most of the beginning of his term as president. Lincoln was, at first, a supporter of the American Colonization plan - which was a belief of some white abolitionists that blacks and whites could not live peacefully with each other, so they sought to emigrate the freed slaves to colonies in Africa. Douglass was justified in detesting that plan and condemning Lincoln’s support of it. Douglass went as far as to say of Lincoln’s presidency that he “has resolved that no good shall come to the Negro from this war.”
I think there’s ample reason to think that Lincoln’s shift in perspective by the end of the civil war was a direct result of Douglass’s influence, but by no measure does anyone on ‘the left’ think of Douglass as a traitor to his morals. He was a patriot who fought tooth-and-nail for what was right, even in the face of compromise presented as ‘progress’.
Your own link shows that Douglas campaigned for Lincoln.
Check my edit. He campaigned for him after his first term (through which he actively opposed him), and only really saw him as an ally after the first 3 years through the civil war (and after Lincoln’s own perspective had shifted).
Edit: keep in mind that Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation January 1st of 63, before Douglass had any interest in campaigning for him. He had literally already abolished slavery before Douglass threw his hat in for him
Leading up to the 1860 election, Frederick Douglass was conflicted about who to support. David W. Blight argues in “Frederick Douglass” that the activist saw Republicans not as true opponents to slavery but rather as just opposed to the power that enslavers could wield politically. Still, he saw supporting the Republicans as his only real option because they at least “humbled the slave power” and fought against it as an institution. Douglass expressed a willingness to work with the Republicans even though he was disappointed by their overall platform. He wrote an article a few months before the election that was positive toward Lincoln.
In the months leading up to the election, Douglass continued to stump for Abraham Lincoln by giving many speeches, and he was involved in other campaigns, like trying to abolish the racist $250 property requirement for Black voters in New York (per Blight). He also worked as a recruiter, getting Black soldiers to join the war effort. A month after the election, Douglass wrote an article in his newspaper, “Douglass’ Monthly,” in which he stated the nomination of Lincoln "demonstrated the possibility of electing … an anti-slavery reputation to the Presidency of the
I had to go and pull out my copy of Blight’s book on Douglass, because it had been a while but I remembered that section of the book differently.
The whole passage is expressing a sentiment very different from the one that ‘Grunge’ article is representing - without transcribing that whole section i’ll just quote the last little bit that summarizes his summer leading up to the election:
spoiler
On July 2 [after his apparent June indication of support for the Republicans], he wrote in a confused tone to Gerrit Smith, who struggled with a mental breakdown in the wake of Harpers Ferry. “I cannot support Lincoln,” Douglass asserted, “but whether there is life enough in the Abolitionists [Radical Abolition Party] to name a candidate, I cannot say. I shall look to your letter for light on the pathway of duty.” Then in August Douglass wrote in the Monthly that the “vital element” of the Republican Party was its “antislavery sentiment.” “Nothing is plainer,” Douglass argued, “than that the Republican party has its source in the old Liberty party.” It would live or die, he contended, “as the abolition sentiment of the country flourishes or fades.” Vexed by his commitments to moral principle and political action, Douglass announced that he would vote for what historian Richard Sewell rightly called the remnant of Gerrit Smith’s “miniscule” radical party, while assiduously working for Lincoln’s election.
The comparison is not quite as clear as I think you’d like, since Douglass’s tentative ‘support’ of Lincoln was motivated by a desire to bring the north and south closer to outright conflict, not as a way of picking a lesser evil or mitigating harm. I’d say Douglass’s sentiment is more in-line with current-day pro-palestinian activists, who acknowledge the political calculus of a moderately-favorable party against an outright hostile one, but who publicly oppose voting for them themselves. He’d be in that same ‘protest-vote’ pool that most people here keep complaining about. I’m actually lightly amused by this apparent reversal, since today it’s more common to find people who say ‘i will vote for democrats’ but then actively campaign against them, but again I think the comparison is strained.
Either way, trying to argue that Douglass ‘worked for Lincoln’ is still incredibly misleading at best, and clearly a liberal self-centeredness that he (and most other black civil rights activists in our history) actively loathed and berated:
Americans, Douglass believed, instinctively and culturally watched history and preferred not to act in it. Douglass summed up his bitter complaint as “this terrible paradox of passing history” rooted in a distinctively American selfishness. “Whoever levies a tax upon our Bohea or Young Hyson [two forms of Chinese tea], will find the whole land blazing with patriotism and bristling with bayonets.” If some foreign power tried to “impress a few Yankee sailors,” Americans would go “fight like heroes.” Douglass fashioned a withering chastisement of American self-centeredness that would match any modern complaint about the culture’s hyperindividualism. “Millions of a foreign race may be stolen from their homes, and reduced to hopeless and inhuman bondage among us,” he complained, “and we either approve the deed, or protest as gently as ‘sucking doves.’ ” His “wickedly selfish” Americans loved to celebrate their “own heritage, and on this condition are content to see others crushed in our midst.” They lived by the “philosophy of Cain,” ready with their bluntly evil answer to the famous question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Douglass’s use of the Cain and Abel parable is all the more telling if we remember that, unlike the more sentimental ways the “brother’s keeper” language is often employed today, Cain had just killed his brother, and to God’s query as to Abel’s fate, Cain replies in effect, why should I care? Douglass wanted the indifferent Americans, with blood on their hands as well, to read on further in Genesis and know Cain’s fate as “a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth.”
Doubtless he wouldn’t have seen as much in the way of redeeming qualities in Biden or Harris, since far from Lincoln’s willingness to engage the south (for the wrong reasons in Douglass’s mind), Biden repeatedly cowered away from confronting Israel’s antagonism and actively sheltered them from consequence. But then again I think neither of us can do more than speculate as to what he’d think of us more than 170 years later.
- Claiming to be leftists
- Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
- Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
- Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
Except for the one example you listed that I omitted here, you’ve just described, like, at least 1/3 of Lemmy, maybe more.
The obvious ones I blocked long ago. There were some I didn’t block, but a good chunk of those up and disappeared right after the election in November, so that was not suspicious at all.
Frankly, I’m just about done with anything “political” on social media and am just going to start employing keyword filters. I’ll just have to find some other void to shout into when I need an outlet lol.
Yep. It’s a damn mess.
I don’t claim to know how to make them be honest about their motivations or, in the case of those few who are genuinely being taken in by this garbage, wake the hell up and realize what they’re throwing away. But I know that having the idea out there in the open in a digestible way can at least help some people get a better view of what’s going on. Maybe they’ll follow suit and block some of the worst ones. Maybe they’ll rely less on social media for their perspectives on the world and realize that Lemmy isn’t the exception to its toxicity just because it’s open source.
We need to be more aware of them than we have been, though, because it’s getting worse.
I just don’t know a good way to deal with that, TBH. I wish I did.
how to make them be honest about their motivations
It’s tough. If I get a funny feeling about an account and think they might be a concern troll (I think that’s the term that applies here; if not, someone please correct me. I think “false ally” is a sub-class of that, but I’m shooting from the hip here),
I’ll typically look back through their history, try to put things in context, and get a feel from there. The ones I blocked were pretty much all one-trick ponies, so that was easy (though tedious as it took a while “vetting” each one).
The problem there is, yes, you’ve identified that person. But everyone else needs to do the same legwork and come to the same conclusion. You can’t just put up a sign that says “Troll” lol. Depending on the community/instance, you could report them, but that often puts mods in a sticky situation because they usually don’t want to suppress anyone’s viewpoint as long as it’s not violating any rules.
or, in the case of those few who are genuinely being taken in by this garbage
That’s even tougher. First, you have to figure out if they’re the troll or the one who was trolled (troll-ee lol?) . And one, very rightfully, can’t /shouldn’t just start calling people trolls or shills. For one, they might be the troll-ee; going out of the gate with name-calling and accusations is definitely not the way to convince them to re-evaluate their views. For another, it just sets a bad tone and gives the impression that “everyone who disagrees with me is a troll”.
But sometimes they are. What do you do then?
Wish I had an answer that didn’t involve writing multiple theses on a number of topics as they try to sealion me into submission lol.
So, everyone actually doesn’t have to do the same legwork. If most of the posters in a community block someone, that person won’t be able to post in most of the threads in that community and won’t get the engagement they’re looking for.
Whether they’re trolls or whether they’re useful idiots, I say block them. Not only that, actively encourage others to do the same. If we take to blocking these people on sight the moment they start spouting this bullshit, they very quickly will see threads full of “# additional responses” that they can’t actually see or respond to.
In some cases it might actually be worth reporting them, too. A lot of them go well beyond the rules of the communities they’re engaging with, but I’ve also seen at least one instance where a very prominent cuckoo-poster got chased off the instance by the staff. He was basically told to knock it off or leave and he chose the latter. Good riddance.
Don’t the people you block still see your posts?
I’m under the impression that they can’t reply to them directly.
They can still reply, you just won’t see them or get a notification.
So there is a bit of FOMO to get over when blocking, but it’s not too bad. Kind of like realizing you have no control over what people say behind your back. I’m just like, “If I cared what they had to say, I wouldn’t have blocked them in the first place”
Oh. Welp. At least it reduces their engagement.
This is just Lemmy and the whole “leftist” influencer sphere (read: people who watch Hasan Piker and take him seriously).
I completely agree with everything you mention here but you’re going to make a lot of Lemmies very mad.
They aren’t open to real discourse and will literally ally with Republicans if it means they can take down Democrats.
I’m not sure about that. But we will absolutely vote third, if they offer a platform that doesn’t vote status quo or having no view record, advance a platform that offers us something tangible. If they betray us, we remember.
David Pacman?
This post is beyond delusional. It’s like the meme about everything I don’t like is woke. The liberal version basically being everything I don’t like is a Russian/MAGA bot. Is it really that hard to believe that left leaning people don’t agree with the Democratic Party platform? You’re deeper in your bubble than you realize my friend.
Oh look, someone who’s generalizing op then tries to discredit them! Way to prove their point
They didn’t make any type of platform or political argument to even debate against. Basically saying that everyone who dislikes democrats is secretly a republican. That’s all I’m calling them on. Total nonsense.
Misdirection, nice! That’s cuz this is not about platforms or any political argument, dr Troll
You’re goofy man. I don’t even know what your point is. OP said something. I said I disagreed with it. Epic troll by me I guess.
Go to a politics or platforms community if you’re looking for a politic argument or stuff about platforms
Thank you for the suggestion.
Watch out for the following five fallacies, and the cuckoo is easy to spot:
- oversimplification: false dichotomy, ignoring relevant factors
- genetic fallacy: instead of focusing on what is being said, the cuckoo always focuses on who says it
- straw man: cuckoos are really eager to put words into your mouth, and try to force you to defend claims you never did in first place
- ignore refutation: if you prove without a shadow of doubt that the cuckoo’s claim is wrong, they’ll ignore your refutation and still use it to back up even dumber claims
- ad nauseam: same claim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Then as you spot the cuckoo, the rest is easier - for example, IMO a sensible approach is to point out what the cuckoo is doing, to whoever might be reading your comment, while disengaging so you aren’t giving the cuckoo further time to sing.
I think it’s a very common belief amongst forums like these to look to logical fallacies to root out dishonest behavior, in the hopes that it’ll provide a nice and easy way to deduce when someone’s a grifter. That you can tell if someone’s a liar – or for that matter, real – by applying them sufficiently.
The problem is, humans are fallible. They fuck up. Innocently. Constantly. It’s normal to make fallacious arguments, and doing so should not cause you to be automatically marked off as a robot, troll or spy. Some examples for your given fallacies:
- Oversimplification can also occur if someone is tired and does not want to go into rigorous academic detail for their argument. Alternatively, they may simply not know the detail to begin with.
- Genetic fallacy can occur due to simple human anger; if someone feels that their interlocutor has made bad-faith arguments frequently before, they’re inclined to ignore what that individual has to say outright, likely without even reading it. (This one has happened in this thread, several times)
- Strawmen happen all the time and extremely easily, because people will inevitably end up making assumptions about the position of others based on previous discussions they’ve had. If you spend enough time arguing a point and getting response
X, you’re going to start assuming that the person you’re talking to about that is implyingX, even if they haven’t said it and never intended to. - Ignoring refutation happens plenty simply when people get defensive. Admitting you’re wrong is hard, and it’s much preferable to instead change the topic or find some other way of pretending you were never disproven of anything. This is inherently a logical leap, and that’s why it leads to often dumber positions.
- With regard to ad nauseam: If someone finds a particular point very convincing and easy to understand for themselves, they may find it confusing as to why you don’t agree on it. This can lead to them repeatedly trying to explain it more thoroughly and in different words under the assumption that the way they said it was why you didn’t get it. I’ve done this a lot in my past.
With those examples out of the way, I just want to emphasize the fact that you should never pretend the presence of logical fallacies is a guarantee of bad faith, much less use it to dehumanize others. If we let ourselves do that, we’ll all tear each other apart under the mistaken assumption that we’re rooting out an evil that has no promise of even being present at all. To err is human.
Just to be clear:
I am not proposing to categorically label anyone using those five fallacies a cuckoo. I said that it’s easy to spot the cuckoo when you look for those fallacies. Because cuckoos rely on those fallacies to convey their “As A Leftist®, I say we should disempower ourselves!” discourse.
In that case, I contend that is is not easy to spot a cuckoo, and believing that is leaves one dangerously prone to overconfidence. So while I appreciate that you don’t see these fallacies as de facto proof of disingenuous behavior, I still feel that you’re running the risk of false positives.
Fallacies are useful for evaluating the validity of arguments and positions, not for evaluating people themselves. Solitary comments can never let you evaluate a whole person, because no whole person fits in a text box.
In that case, I contend […]
When answering your earlier comment, I wasn’t sure if you were
- Speaking on general grounds, without noticing that context made your comment imply that I said what I did not; OR
- Assuming=bullshitting that I said what I did not. e.g. that I’d not be taking into account that humans are fallible, or that I would be dehumanising others.
In doubt, I answered it with a simple clarification. However, that “in that case” confirms it’s #2, so I’ll readdress your earlier comment: cut off the crap.
Avoiding fallacies is not “academic rigour” dammit, it’s basic human decency. Decent human beings avoid bringing unnecessary harm to other human beings, and irrationalities (like fallacies) harm people. Doubly so in this context (politics), because that fallacy means people supporting people/entities/policies that should they not support. (Look at Gaza for a prime example of that. It’s literally people being killed because people give a thumbs up to an oversimplification, so a genocide looks like self-defence.)
“If someone is tired”, “simple human anger”, “when people get defensive” - people under those situations should not be discussing politics (mind the context!) on first place.
And no, it is neither logically nor morally acceptable to assume the others’ views, as you said under “strawmen”. It’s piece of shit behaviour of people who don’t mind blaming others for what they did not say or do not support.
Now, addressing this comment:
In that case, I contend that is is not easy to spot a cuckoo
In the context? Yes, it is. If someone is babbling “As A Leftist®, I say we should not fight back” and you smell those fallacies, the first thing you should look for is a brood parasite.
Fallacies are useful for evaluating the validity of arguments and positions, not for evaluating people themselves.
It’s useful for both.
While brainfarts happen, and people should be lenient towards small mistakes, someone who doesn’t even try to avoid fallacies is a harmful individual and should be treated as such.
I still feel that you’re running the risk of false positives.
Not a problem in the light of the proposed solution. (Point out and disengage)
Solitary comments can never let you evaluate a whole person, because no whole person fits in a text box.
In line with what you did in the earlier comment, now you’re implying that I would have claimed that solitary comments let you evaluate a whole person. I did not; please stop implying otherwise, this is at the very least disingenuous, if not worse.
The whole thing with the cuckoo is that it’s a useful label for people engaging into a certain political behaviour dammit. This is clear by context, if you actually bother to read the OP.
[In the line of what I proposed, I am disengaging. While the user above is not behaving like a cuckoo, I have little to no patience towards assumers putting words into the others’ mouths.]
Jesus Christ. I said what I said in the worry that you were suggesting fallacies were clear verdicts, and responded in order to defuse that possibility for both yourself (if it was indeed there) and, crucially, for anyone else reading. I wasn’t trying to annihilate your character.
But I don’t think anything I can do here anymore is worth doing, now. If this is what I get for trying to encourage sympathetic behavior, I’m just not going to participate at all.
This is incredibly hurtful. Goodbye.
straw man: cuckoos are really eager to put words into your mouth, and try to force you to defend claims you never did in first place
This one is a really key tell. The people who spend most of their message emphasizing what it is that their opponents believe, and only in passing deal with what they believe (which tends to be along the lines of “well they all want to kill Palestinian babies but I don’t want that, so clearly you can see the difference”), and immediately start telling anyone who talks with them what they believe also… that’s an important signal.
I think it is so popular because it is substantially lower-effort than engaging with anything the person is actually saying, and also it works on anything. You don’t have to be on the right side of the argument, you can just assign your opponent some awful crazy shit, and then get to work disagreeing with that.
Edit: Just for some examples. Here are things people have told me today:
your attitude that good people who would absolutely give you their last meal for days or literally stand in front of you to take a bullet that you may or not deserve are disposable lives
(Literally no idea what this is about)
I don’t think it’s unconscionable that the police are minimally held to that expectation
(I, also, think that the police should be held to the expectation they’re talking about, and said so repeatedly)
you were unnecessarily bringing race into this discussion
(I wasn’t, I did bring BLM into a discussion about the police)
Your saying things like “don’t refuse to give ID” or “Just talk with them. Tell them what you know, help them figure out the situation.” as a blanket suggestion
(I said the exact opposite of that)
I don’t mean to condescend to liberals – shouldn’t have used “libs” I guess – but I think of them, in the US, as primarily just trying to get the democrats back into power and then mostly disengage. The most outspoken of them tend to have much more energy to fight universal healthcare and other the social democratic reforms of a Bernie Sanders rather than actually take aim at the capitalist, state, and other hierarchies making our lives worse.
(I wasn’t explicitly included in this grouping, but this person was explicitly talking to and about me when they said this. Obviously none of this has anything to do with anything I think or want. This is a form of indirect strawman “You are group X and all group X people think Y and Z” that is particularly hopeless to ever have any kind of success in disagreeing with)
So kindly fuck off with your genocidal apology nonsense
(I pointed out with alarm that there is literally 0 food in Gaza currently and people are likely to start to starve on a mass scale this month)
And so on
That’s quickly becoming my approach. Point it out and then immediately block them and stop engaging. Once you block them, they can’t keep following you around spamming the same noise.
Actually… they can. I got one today, they created a new account just to reply to the same comment, with an insult about having blocked them. They earned a stalking report, but I doubt it will stick.
I suppose it must make the world a lot simpler if you assume the US Democratic and Republican parties represent the full range of beliefs that exist in the world, and anyone who doesn’t neatly fit into those categories is simply lying.
Take that, you strawman! And that!
“I disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats.”
“Impossible! You must be a secret Republican here to turn people against the Democrats”
“It kinda seems like you’re assuming has to be either a Democrat or a Republican”
“Strawman! I never said those exact words!”
I have to say it’s pretty ironic to accuse someone else of strawmanning while simultaneously rejecting every single thing they say about their own position and arbitrarily assigning them a completely different position that contradicts everything they say in a way that makes it easier to dismiss what they say.
“I disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats.”
And if the people OP is criticizing were saying that, then what you were saying wouldn’t be a strawman.
But, they aren’t, and he is drawing a very explicit picture of the behavior they’re displaying which is very distinct (although I guess you could say that people who disagree with both R and D are part of a superset of which OP’s described people are a tiny little specific subset with specific behaviors… although in practice they very rarely say anything about “both the Republicans”. It’s mostly heaping scorn on the Democrats exclusively and sometimes taking time out to say that the Republicans are better or equivalent on some issue on which they objectively are not).
And that’s what makes what you are saying a strawman.
Weird that you’re taking all this time to call out people who focus their criticism on the Democrats, yet your post is completely silent on Ghenghis Khan. I can only conclude that you support rampant killing and pillaging since you don’t spend as much time calling them out as you do calling us out, since apparently that’s how you think logic works.
Alternatively, we can acknowledge the simple fact that it’s not necessary to make arguments about why Ghenghis Khan was bad if nobody is defending him around here, and by the same logic it isn’t necessary to argue about why the Republicans are bad when nobody is defending them around here.
The few times that I’ve seen a Trump supporter wander into Lemmy (and inevitably gotten ratio’d hard), I have attacked and criticized them. I can show my receipts if you like.
It’s mostly heaping scorn on the Democrats exclusively and sometimes taking time out to say that the Republicans are better or equivalent on some issue on which they objectively are not).
You can’t present receipts of me doing that. Maybe somebody at some point has made such a claim, but it’s generally a bullshit strawman.
yet your post is completely silent on Ghenghis Khan
If Ghengis Khan had been running for president of the United States last year, and I had been running around Lemmy yammering and biting my nails about what a problem Kamala Harris was, then fuck yes that would be weird. I think people should have called me out for it. Yes. That’s my point.
That is, in fact, exactly the reason why I think it’s stupid that these people were biting their nails so hard. Especially since the sum total of what they accomplished is to help put Ghengis in charge.
Sorry for interrupting your circlejerk, I guess. Apparently we’re supposed to spend a bunch of time talking about things that already have near-universal agreement here. I don’t find that particularly interesting or worthwhile.
I’m not saying that everyone should have spent all their time on Lemmy agreeing with each other that Ghengis was bad. I’m saying that spending all our time leading up to that election talking about what a problem Kamala Harris was, and how we shouldn’t vote for her, would be weird and suspicious in precisely 100% the exact same fashion as what people were actually doing. Thank you for making my point for me, in fact, that’s a really good analogy to explain it.
Lmao here you are again, I’ve seen you before. You are usually quiet honest about not believing in democracy and defending the USSR etc. Having fun spreading discord here, tankie troll?
I’m not “spreading discord” nor “trolling.” I have no interest in disguising my beliefs.
Yes, I will defend the USSR. I will also “defend” just about any nation, if the claims being made about it are false, because my priority is the truth. For many people, the truth doesn’t matter so much as they feel this need to demonstrate that they’re part of an in-group or to communicate that they themselves aren’t going to revolt, and so they allow all kinds of lies spread and propagate them themselves. Because to counteract blatant misinformation about a country is to defend it.
As for democracy, I don’t believe in bourgeois “democracy” where the winner is decided by who has the most money and virtually every important decision is taken out of the sphere of public influence. I do not believe in a “democracy” where the people have to choose which face will be the one to commit genocide. That’s not really democracy though, is it?
I embrace the label “tankie,” mostly because it is thrown around so wantonly that it’s meaningless, and loses any punch it might have otherwise have. In practice, if you have a single positive thing to say about any self-described socialist state in history, for example, “Cuba’s literacy program was good,” then someone’s gonna call you a tankie.
Personally, I love that, because it turns it into this broad, all-inclusive term for any serious leftist, and papers over some differences. It’s kinda like the word “queer.” Whether you’re an Anarchist or a Marxist or whatever else, if the liberals are calling you “tankie” you’re probably a comrade, and if you’re throwing around the term yourself you’re probably a liberal. You Ain’t Done Nothing If You Ain’t Been Called A
RedTankieAgain, nothing socialist about you, authoritarian.
Socialism is when you ask nicely for the bourgeoisie to pretty please give up their wealth and stop exploiting people and the nicer you ask the more socialistier it is.
Classic. Assuming I’m against a socialist revolution despite me never having made this claim.
Edit: To be clear I am very much in favor of socialist revolutions. Unlike a certain someone else I am however not in favor of military dictatorships which pretend to be socialist,
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
Fredrick Engles, famous non-socialist
How irrelevant. I’m talking about the end result of the revolution. You want to establish dictatorship. I want to establish worker democracy. I am a socialist. You are an authoritarian.
Edit: Never understood why tankies are so obsessed with quoting old dead authoritarians as if that somehow changes the present in some way. I don’t let auths redefine my words. Also how about quoting the anarchists they are so fond of murdering instead.
Removed by mod
Stupid thing is that it’s the humanity and empathy of the left that is both the draw and the weakness of the movement.
Conservatives can come into leftist discourse spaces and either pose as the extreme leftists you describe, or even just the more reasonable end of the conservatives (non facist/maga types, rare as they are any more) an they’ll be engaged with in good faith. Since they’re ultimately not there for a proper discussion though it results in nothing more than creating chaos and arguments
Liberal/leftists who walk into conservative spaces are greeted with scorn and derision, treated as lunatics from the start not worth listening to. Since the left would generally be coming in with honest intent though at best they waste their time shouting into an established echo chamber, or worse get convinced that there’s a good middle ground to work towards.
Absolutely. Conservatives have, unfortunately, sailed straight past us on political effectiveness in recent years. We’re spending our time wringing our hands about doing the right thing and cajoling one another into doing the same. Unfortunately in a lot of cases modern leftism favors atomizing based on who a particular segment sees as having sufficient moral purity over solidarity. Meanwhile, conservatives don’t really care about much of anything other than maintaining a socially conservative status quo. They’ll even let people they hate pretend to be part of the club if they debase themselves enough to be politically useful. At the same time, they’ll viciously attack anyone who isn’t politically useful to them.
I’m not saying we ought to abandon our principles or start viciously attacking anyone who doesn’t toe the line of being politically useful, but we need to remember how to build coalitions and think strategically.
Since the left would generally be coming in with honest intent though at best they waste their time shouting into an established echo chamber, or worse get convinced that there’s a good middle ground to work towards.
I tried going to conservative spaces on Lemmy. The liberals wouldn’t allow any dialogue. Not the conservatives, the liberals.
liberals are conservatives. What we call conservatives are regressives.
I’d need some examples to get what you mean here. My experiences, both personal and simply observed, is that you can you can roughly split both conservatives and liberals into two sub-groups, although the distinction on the liberal side is a lot more fuzzy.
There’s the emotive/moralizing side that fight based on what they feel rather than any concrete justification. What’s right is decided simply by an assumption of how the world should work, either collaboratively or selfishly looking out for yourself only.
Then there are the logical logical arguments. On the conservative side these end up being a lot more in the form of ‘I am right, you need to prove otherwise’ while liberals (myself guilty of it as well) will go through these elaborate deliberations backing one point with another and somehow hoping to convince these people who have already decided they’re right of their error.
If you’ve ever tried beating your head into a brick wall you might recognize the feeling that last one, but it’s hardly an obstruction to dialogue, just a frustration of trying to engage rationally with largely irrational beings.
I’ve deleted my comment because I’m not willing to search “third party” and “Democrats” and post threads. I drove the friend in bad health to do some errands in their car, and after arguing with them about it until mid-afternoon, drove them to the ER, and they are now in ICU so I’m pretty much ignoring things I could and/or should be doing while sort-of processing this in the bg, and awaiting further information. Believe what you want.
deleted by creator
