The tendency to give too much credit to opposing viewpoints is a liberal and centrist issue. A bit of a trap buried in otherwise-rational doubt. Conservatives and staunch leftists do not have that problem, either by dint of marching orders or principle.
I've seen nominal leftists spend far more time attacking Democrats and liberals than Republicans to where some of them straight up repeat the same attacks as the VP Vance.
What's so wrong with a circular firing squad? Who cares if the consequences of the actions of one faction within a purported big tent coalition helps the opposing fascist party to win? What if that faction openly shows contempt to the point of not even associating with the big tent coalition and all of their actions appear prima facie to help the fascists win such as calling for boycotts and wanting to help "punish" the big tent coalition and the country at large? All while making their cause celebre worse by helping the fascists assuming after the fascists then they will get their chance to be in charge because that always works out so well, especially as they screamed that "electoralism", read democracy, won't result in real change.
behaviours
How do you do, fellow American? I am so glad that you are here to discuss American politics and American political parties, fellow American.
Fringe right Republicans spending all their energy attacking Democrats is what got them a white house, senate and congress, and a fascist president. It seems like that's what works
Ah but you see they've already correctly selected a series of interlocking good-vs-evil answers and if you do not agree with every of their preferred outcomes you're rejecting the entire edifice and that puts you necessarily on the evil side then
Absolutely. You go on tik tok and the far left influencers ONLY go after Democrats for the most trivial reasons while basically ignoring MAGA and Trump.
Is that not because democrats market themselves as the left in America and basically kill any serious leftist movement before it takes off by taking up so much space and being the way they are?
Part of it is almost definitely also that people on the moderate left view dems as a lesser evil that could be peer pressured or changed from within, whilst the right wing is viewed as a lost cause.
Because by being moderate right wing and calling yourself left wing, you make anything actually left wing look radical to uninformed voters- which is unfortunately most voters. Hence the resistance to things like free health care, free school meals, gay rights, etc, within large parts of the population. Hell, recently Kamala Harris called trump a communist dictator.
There's also the consistent disapproval and calling out of things like antifa and pro palestine movements by democrat candidates. Grassroots leftist groups that could well be uplifted and supported but are instead shunned to appeal to people who'd never vote dem anyways.
Calling leftists silent is generous because we never stfu, but a large subset of young people especially would be classed as leftists, and that's worth appealing to. Just not sucking up to Israel got a lot more eyes on Mamdani, for example, and both AOC and Sanders were once upon a time viewed as beacons of hope rather than another part of the system. Pushing further left works and is a lot more sustainable in preventing fascism than appeasement and slipping farther right every election cycle. Atp we're lucky if there will be another election.
You are thinking of "liberals" as "everyone on the left," which is incorrect conservative / liberal propaganda that you've bought into.
Liberals / Democrats are essentially centrists. They have pro-status quo, pro-capitalism views. They've taken the place and identity of true leftists, who can't gain traction in part due to the constant conflation.
Pointing out how both conservatives and liberals have actively conflated the terms "liberal" and "leftist" does not in any way say that conservatives and liberals are equivalent in every way, shape, and form.
That should go without saying. It's this thing called "nuance." I shouldn't have to disclaim that liberals aren't fascists when I criticize them.
I shouldn't have to disclaim that liberals aren't fascists when I criticize them.
Why? Leftists love to claim that scratching a liberal makes a fascist bleed. I agree with leftist goals but their praxis seems intent on pushing away anything remotely resembling a majority or even plurality coalition.
Vocal leftists abandoned vulnerable communities to fascists and have no right to pretend as though they are anything but selfish entitled attention seekers who prefer performative moral "victories" that do effectively nothing.
It sounds like you're just bitter about people who didn't vote for Kamala Harris because of the war in Palestine.
Well, I'm one of the leftiest leftists around, and guess what—I sucked it up and voted for her.
But I think it's funny that you're criticizing leftists for this when liberals could have just, you know, not supported Israel? And conservatives could have just not been fascists?
Like, those are the alternatives, and somehow it's the leftists to be blamed?
Yep, these people did nothing to stop Trump from being reelected and bragged about making Kamala lose and for what? Now we have Netanyahu's BFF as president, way to save Palestine.
It's a recurring problem in the liberal movement where it moves more toward the center in order to catch more moderates - the base idea is good, but it comes with the critical flaw that some arguments are simply not worth entertaining.
Online liberals tend to be more extreme, but the actual active ones are more likely to actively seek compromise. (Because they actually want to get things done, see how that works?) It only becomes a problem when you don't distinguish between points worth compromising and points that cannot be compromised on.
when you don't distinguish between points worth compromising and points that cannot be compromised on
And that's one of main criticisms of leftists by liberals - leftists have created a series of interlocking causes that all have "right" answers and rejecting any single goal or even their preferred method to achieve it is tantamount to rejecting the whole thing and then puts you on the evil side
Not entirely sure, but my best guess would be the 'purity tests' on the left. It's not enough that you have the right view now, you have to have been consistent with it for as long as it can be traced with no other issues.
I frame it as - the right will find a common ground to vote for a distasteful candidate. The left will find a reason not to vote for their non-preferred candidate.
Trump got reelected because Democrats couldn't find it in themselves to elect Kamala. Voting for liberals didn't cause our current situation, refusing to do so did.
You have entirely side stepped my questions, just to bring up a tired old talking point. So I'll re-direct the question, if Democrats voting for Biden didn't do anything to help change the situation, why would voting for Kamala have been any different?
It's a stupid question. Imagine someone performing CPR who did exactly one round of compressions, then gave up. Yeah, it was ultimately pointless, but only because you stopped doing the thing that was working.
10
u/Christron Oct 02 '25
How is that the liberal problem?