The Dems absolutely do use the phrase to manipulate conversation. But it's also a real problem on the left - it's one of the ways we divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups leaving us powerless to actually drive policy. I see it happen online every single day.

https://github.com/aarongable/purity

12 years ago it was about sex

Do you have any better evidence of this other than your opinion and your interpretation of a Google trend?

Honestly, anyone who uses "purity test" is just letting you know that they have no standards and expect you to abandon any you have.

The only purity test I'm willing to take: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/purity

😵‍💫All Heil Israel

Sounds like MAGA or ML nonsense

It's a new label but it's not a new concept at all. Factional bickering that weakens a broadly appealing platform has been happening since we invented partisan politics. Just on the left, look at the French Revolution and the socialist splintering in the early 20th century.

It's not a thought terminating cliche either, it's a real and tangible problem. The rise of the internet has made targeting and widening these fractures easy and effective. Any bad actor can trivially propogate a message to any number of people, making them naturally coalesce into opposing echo chambers. This chart may as well track social media use during election years.

It's true that "purity testing" is often used as a bludgeon to stifle criticism of obviously regressive policies, but it's unfair to completely ignore the kernel of truth about the opposite end of the spectrum. When a bloc of voices is lodging criticisms with no constructive platform, there's no value being added and they may as well be opposition.

It's often not that hard to tell when that line is crossed either. If your claim is candidate X is vile but you have no real option Y as a substitute, then your attack can only be strengthing the opposition. There is a political reality you have to operate in; the system of election and popular opinion automatically limit your options. Being vehemently opposed to a subset of policies does not mean supporting that candidate is automatically the wrong political play.

If you're truly a bright-eyed idealist and can't stomach the political sausage making then you'll have to find another approach. If you want to use the system in place (for example, USA's FPTP and electoral college) then you have to put in a ton of work and political maneuvering. If you don't believe in the reformist approach then you have no skin in the game and shouldn't be complaining.

It's a term I've used. All 320 million of us Americans have to get along on some terms. We're a big country with a lot of subcultures and variance in needs, experience and standards of living. Defeating fascism will take a majority of those 320 million people agreeing on a complex set of values that aren't fascistic.

We need to be focusing more on finding allies that share anti-fascist beliefs than subdividing into smaller and less powerful factions. The crime of American politics is that we can't more closely align our beliefs with our representation. We are vastly under-represented for our size and technological prowess.

Look for allies, not enemies. It's always easy to find enemies, it's what the Republican messaging system excels at. Find the people who agree that fascism is wrong and grow a big enough tent to defeat it.