The headlines over the past few weeks have been unrelenting. The Trump administration is activating the full power of the federal government against perceived enemies, from liberal groups to elections officials to a former FBI director.Meanwhile, autocratic powers like China and Russia are running i...
I'm wondering if some people actually understand what being on the progressive left even means.
Partnering with racists makes you a racist, win or lose.
No, the biggest loss would be fascists staying in power and eliminating racism by eliminating all but one race. Material conditions are much, much more important than ideals.
Is the life of every minority a worthy cost for standing by your principles? If, I hypothetically, you knew for a fact that losing would mean total ethnic cleansing, would you still refuse to accept the support of racists to elect someone you knew for a fact wouldn't do ethnic cleansing?
Yes, we've all seen the Trolley Problem. It's bullshit.
Just like this entire question. People who hate DEI aren't trying to join the left. No one on the left has to reject racists because racists hate us too.
This whole thread is basically trying to split the left. But the funniest part is pretending the fascists and the racists aren't the same people.
Yes, we've all seen the Trolley Problem. It's bullshit.
That's not an answer. Is it worth it or not?
This whole thread is basically trying to split the left.
That's what you got from this? It's overwhelmingly people rightfully pointing out that these line-in-the-sand ideals are what's splitting the left.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in hypothetical game theory.
I'm not going to apologize for drawing a line in the sand that excludes racists. It's a line that must be drawn.
If the left doesn't oppose racism, it stands for nothing.
I'm not interested in hypothetical game theory.
Good, me either. My hypothetical has nothing to do with game theory or the trolley problem, I didn't know why you brought it up.
The hypothetical was about lines in the sand, and how they lead to absurdities. You still haven't answered the question, which indicates to me that you know quite well that if you did answer it, you would expose your idealism as hollow virtue signaling.
Racism isn't even the point. It was just an example of ultimatums doing more harm than good.
If the left can't act strategically and make incremental progress, its stances are materially irrelevant.
You're claiming that rejecting racists as allies means the left is obsessed with purity, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
My point is that if you expect the left to accept racism, you probably don't know diddley shit about the left.
The left is all about incremental progress. That's all we've been able to do for centuries. Again, y'all don't seem to know anything about being left in the USA.
Yes, racism is the point.
No, it isn't. Making every issue a core issue was the point. Drawing lines in the sand over dozens of single issues, contributing to the erosion of an effective voter base was the point.
Racist "allies" were an offhand example, offered by someone else, to illustrate that point. You don't win elections on principles, you win them on votes. Sometimes principles gain votes, sometimes they cost them, but at the end of the day it counts down to how many people pulled the lever.
You don't have to let the casual racists determine the ticket, you just have to let them pull the lever.
But again, it's not about racism. It's about every single stance that's equal to or objectively better than the electable alternative which is snubbed for not being good enough. When it's between Bad and Worse, and people are lining up by the millions for Worse, being one of 12,000 votes for Perfect isn't really helping anyone.
y'all don't seem to know anything about being left in the USA.
The call is coming from inside the house comrade. Big tent with Bad to keep Worse at bay until Good is prepped to make a break for it. Good isn't ready yet. Keep Worse out long enough for Good to gestate. Accelerationism is cringe and privilege-pilled.
The extreme centrists can ally with them. I won't.
Thanks for your advice on how to left properly. I think I'll ignore it and keep voting left in Democratic primaries. We just need more Mamdanis and fewer Fettermans.
keep voting left in Democratic primaries. We just need more Mamdanis and fewer Fettermans
No argument from me. I'm envious that New York has the political climate to support a Mamdani. I'm totally on board with more of his ilk in as many races as they can win.
But some districts aren't going to elect anyone left of Fetterman, and Fettermans are at least better than whatever R would have otherwise won that district. I'm all for whoever's the furthest left candidate that stands a reasonable chance of winning any given district.
Draw your lines in the sand after the office is filled by the least obstructive reasonable contender. Put their feet to the fire for reelection, don't gamble with the more obstructive contender.
