essentially an enormous part of the reason that online leftist spaces suck so much is that they are filled with people who believe it is more important to do nothing wrong than it is to do something right

top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 98 points 1 year ago (1 child)

The only thing more important than "do nothing wrong" is to loudly correct those who are doing "almost right" and "in the right direction."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I had an interaction once where I thought I used double quotes around a word to imply something obvious related to the posted article. A random person got mad at me and claimed I knew nothing about solidarity.

    I felt insulted, they didn't know my life experiences up to that point. I chose to ignore my feelings and pressed them to teach my why I was so wrong. They eventually disappeared from replies because they had nothing behind that image of righteousness. Rare win but I'll take it.

    If someone put themselves in harms way to punch an authoritarian follower in the face in my defence and also uses slurs I could find offensive to myself, that's not my enemy. That's someone awesome who could use a little more education. Later. When the current situation isn't so wild.

    Words are just words. That's not as effective as punching a fascist in face.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Very good take.

    I complained to a partner once about something they'd done that seemed vaguely unethical (by my understanding of their ethics). After they apologised, I was still upset, and they said "maybe I'm a little bit shit, just like everyone else."

    That really stuck with me. People (including myself) are often OK with accepting imperfections in other people in some spaces, but not in others. It's pretty weird.. Life is messy, even the bits that seems straightforward. And no one has a perfect understanding of any situation..

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think this "do nothing wrong" tendency has something to do with intragroup power dynamics. I've often seen it used as a cudgel to knock down others within a group and stop mild dissent even though everyone is on the same team. Usually the most prolific wielder of the "do nothing wrong" cudgel rises to a position of some authority in the group, after which the group fragments because the person is insufferable but unassailable due to their moral superiority.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Great now we get to argue what nothing and something is…

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't usually participate in communities of my interest, like vegan, communist, anarchist, etc. because I know I don't agree a 100% and that there will always be people that think are better than others or that have a lot more time to spend on activism than me. But all my friends know I never back down when discussing important topics with anyone, I always tell them that I will take the time to discuss with people they don't like, like weird conservatives and other uncomfortable groups (which have a big presence where I study).

    I usually can recognize when someone is close to being more left-leaning than what they think they are, and I take the time to talk to them about it, which a lot of leftist communities don't (at least from what I've seen). Yes, there are trolls, but usually when talking in person, they aren't that stupid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    No improving the current system allowed!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And sometimes those people will even destroy active progress because it doesn't meet their definition of perfect.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Online leftists will destroy something because it's not 100% of what they want, disregarding the 50-60% that would be what they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    There's nothing wrong with encouraging others to be better versions of themselves. The problem is many people aren't capable of doing so without being toxic AF.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (18 children)

    I haved discussions with others here where its people are just not happy with baby steps and want full change right away. Problem is we need to make more friends not enemies with each other.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I've started to make a habit on the internet to make amends and give grace to people who get upset in the comments as fast as possible. Textual online spaces are seemingly quite prone to disagreement, so it's a huge help just to mindfully counteract that tendency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ball big. Need lots of hands. Take long time move. Come. Help. Roll big ball with us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Also, we don't actually know which way we need to roll it. Some people have strong ideas, other understand the vague direction but there's lots of invisible obstacles strewn across the landscape, and whenever we hit one there are a hundred different people with a thousand different explanations about what the fuck just happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    It bothers me that I see genocide trivialize so often, like implying it's a full step that needs to wait. The problem is that they would rather take the steps that help Israel commit heinous acts then start with small steps that benefit their constituents.

    Stopping the sale of weapons to a apartheid state committing genocide and condemning them is now seen as too much? I can't expect anything good to come from them if that's the kind of slack we insist on giving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    They had the same foreign policy every administration since Israel became a country did but some people chose now to get upset about it.

    The world is a worse place now because Harris didn't win.

    Biden second term would have be heaven compared to this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    It's almost like if blatant genocide changes the equation. Honestly, Israel should have lost our support a long time ago. It's easy to see how deep corruption and most likely black mail had a big role to play.

    Yes, the world would be a better place with Harris at the helm. It's a shame she tried her hardest to lose. FYI, I voted for her but I'm also mature enough to realize that she basically gave all her voters the finger and that's why she lost.

    Keep blaming the evil voters who couldn't stomach genocide and we will get the exact same play next election. You are enabling, not helping. It's their job to get votes and care about our opinion ffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Single issue voters always make the world a worse place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I find it crazier that the dems decided to make genocide a voting issue in the first place. Weaponized incompetence, I swear. They could have told Israel to pound sand, but they chose a foreign state over us. They screwed you too man, have a spine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yes, but it's not the ONLY thing going on. Would you let the rest of the world burn to stop genocide in the middle east? I'm guessing not.

    So if there is a massive problem that we can't directly take action to fix, you try to attack the source of the problem or other adjacent problems.

    This idea that the Dems need to be fully against it or I'll never vote for them is naive. If the alternative is WW3 with 10x the deaths or continued genocide I don't like either but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines while WW3 starts and complain about the dems stance as the reason I didn't try to prevent it. Maintaining a moral high ground at the expense of people isn't ok. Yes they could have done a million things better or different, but they didn't. We had a choice to make with the options we had. Some people rejected reality and ushered in this shit storm so they could keep their concussion clean, it's selfish. They'd rather have peace of mind than actually prevent suffering, because they had a chance to and didn't.

    There are other people, other children suffering because of Trump that would not have been if Harris won. That's just fact. Preventing him from getting in office or not, the events in the middle east remain the same, but those other lives impacted could have been prevented. We need to open up our world view and have it grounded in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So if there is a massive problem that we can't directly take action to fix, you try to attack the source of the problem or other adjacent problems.

    I think that is the crux of the issue. I don't see condemning Israel and stopping the sale of weapons as some massive wall. The dems failed to take action and I'm taking action right now by holding them accountable for it.

    The fact is they didn't even try to solve the issue. Israel themselves admitted to it. I consider it their fault Trump won and even more people have to suffer. I see the constant scapegoating post-election as serving nothing except enabling them.

    They need to be told their platform, built on foreign genocide and apathy, is literally atrocious. We need to demand change, not give them an easy way out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You're holding them accountable? How? By making sure they're not in power, so we're at where we are today? You're holding them accountable by having people deported en masse as a result of your strategy?

    You seem to think you're hurting dems by not voting. You're not. They're still rich and in power. The people that were actually impacted are the people in LA, all the small businesses falling apart from tariffs, people being grabbed off the street.

    All this, because you want to stick it to the dems, do you really feel good about the effects of that choice?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    post-election post-election post-election

    I was vocal about voting for her before the election and did so myself even if it felt wrong. We are well past the point where supporting genocide helps them win an election.

    The dems lost because voters are babies that couldn't stomach genocide.

    Do you understand how vile the narrative you try to spread is? It's simply enabling the dems to keep doing Israel's bidding. By contrast, I'm saying:

    The dems lost because they supported genocide

    Blaming and holding them accountable for their actions might actually lead to change while blaming voters brings about absolutely nothing. If they give us the same platform next election, we will lose again. They have to change and we have to pressure them to. It is their job to listen to what the people want, not the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • but the democrats have to appeal to their zionist money-givers too! it's difficult for them to strike a balance between the money-givers and the people who are supposed to vote for them.

    and the people who should vote for them aren't directly hit personally by the israel genocide, so why would they care too much about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Gatekeeping, purity testing, virtue signaling, and no self accountability. These are the four reasons why every leftist space outside of the center left is a complete and utter joke. These traits are cultural in left wing spaces, and they are very common. They are so common that they'll never be going away and they are the root reasons why the left will NEVER accomplish anything substantial during my lifetime.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    I spent a bunch of time in such spaces before the election and was shocked how much time and energy was squandered with virtue signaling and purity testing. There was literally no room for anything else in some of them.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    obviously a trap set by bougie liberals to try and get me to vote for a Democrat.

    but i'm too smart for them

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    This is what I've been saying. The gatekeeping is unreal. How the fuck are we supposed to grow as a movement if we can't accept those who maybe did and/or said some questionable shit in the past? If someone is trying to make positive changes and is demonstrating it with their actions and/or words than we should accept them. I guarantee the vast majority of you here have said or did something that goes against your current beliefs.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    The left purity spirals and eats their own. There is also an unhealthy obsession with victimhood. If these two things were solved the left would be more successful. It would also cease to be "the left" in any modern sense of the word.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This one is fun because it could be both about tankies and actual leftists depending on what you believe in.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Not to ironically quibble, the sentiment is there, but I think "more important to do nothing correctly than something incorrectly" is closer to the mark

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    An alarming number of leftists are not revolutionaries but dictators without power.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    That's not only a problem of online leftists spaces. The left has always been pretty busy with discussing what page of the capital is more beautiful written...

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I have referenced this post so many times but was never able to find it so thanks

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    the other problem with leftist spaces online is a general intolerance to trolls

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Or rather the "I don't agree with you therefore you're a troll"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What is the value of tolerating trolls?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    online leftist

    Important things happen offline, online is more or less a distraction.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Trump is literally a 4chan meme gone too far, homie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I don't know if that's really true anymore. Or, maybe more accurately, I think we're in between when that was true in the pre-social media age and when it'll be true again after the social web breathes its last. There are just too many ways that megacorps, bad actors, and foreign agents can manipulate offline activity with online action.

    Some of those things are manipulating small groups into large-scale action (see: Qanon), but misinformation and meme warfare also have a measurable effect on election, direct action, etc. Not to mention that local organization is best done online, and that has a very real effect.

    Now, is offline action more important than online action? Absolutely, and if you're saying that being an "online leftist" (as an identity) is a distraction, I think I agree with you. But online action is more than just a distraction, and to ignore it is probably counterproductive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yes let's start a 3rd party

    wave of downvotes and idiots screaming about RCV even though that's not a disqualifier

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    But you’ll continue to support democrats in higher offices until your third party has support in lower offices and a functioning party structure, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No!!! The lesser of two evils is still evil so I'd rather vote for a weak 3rd party candidate to help secure the win for the more evil candidate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If it were only that, but traditionally 3rd party candidates are all the rage 2 weeks before the US elections, and then the day after the elections they're gone from the discourse, and you'll hear nothing about them for the next 4 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    it's that leftists are broadly intellectuals

    I used to think this. Then everyone came out about how Kamala didn't get them excited, aka appeal to their emotions. When I pointed this out and that they weren't thinking logically and instead relying on emotions they frankly agreed, saying something something not a robot. And there were proud of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Is being an intellectual mutually exclusive with having emotions? Because as far as I know all people have emotions..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    If you let your emotions dictate your thoughts and actions, I have bad news for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Bro, you do it too, you just don't admit it to yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yeah that's what I thought, you're exhibit A.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    🤷

    Modern psychology and neuroscience agrees with me. Eg. https://neurosciencenews.com/emotion-reason-decision-making-25803/

    Or have a read of Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow if you want something a bit deeper.

    The human brain is packed full of inescapable cognitive biases, many of which relate to emotions. They occur just as much for you as for me, and ignoring them or denying them just makes the problem worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    emotions, as demonstrated in his wine tasting study

    Lololololololol. Whatever you're trying to say it's based on wine tasting. Lolololololol.

    My last message to you is: go ahead and cry during old yeller. When it comes to politics, think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ah, ignoring evidence because it doesn't support your pre-existing views. Text-book case of confirmation bias 😊

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    You do know that people exist on a spectrum of behaviors,right? Oh why do I bother. Have at your emotions, but know that not everyone lets them dictate their actions like you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes. My point is that everyone is on the spectrum, and a purely rational mode of decision-making does not exist in humans. Every decision has emotional components.

    I never said that decisions are purely emotional.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    .....

    .....

    .....

    And that means plenty of people do not let them dictate their thoughts and actions. That's what I said from the start. To which you responded "Bro, you do it too, you just don't admit it to yourself." So no, I don't let them dictate my thoughts and actions.

    Ok really I can't even in this conversation. Best I can figure is you're arguing against a strawman. Ciao. For real.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    it’s that leftists are broadly intellectuals or at least identify as intellectual because of effort they put into honoring nuance

    Nah. It's just that they believe they are better and have huge confirmation bias. You're not with them? You're an enemy and should be banned because you're a troll.

    Can't we just fucking have a place where everyone is free to speak? Circlejerks are cringe

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Every time I see the idiots calling for abolishment of the police, I never see anything remotely approaching a viable replacement for what they should be doing.

    We're not solving murder, rape, burglaries, drunk driving, general assaults, etc overnight. And we're certainly not within a five year plan of solving those things either.

    So yeah, hardline abolishment fanatics can shove off. Come back with actual solutions, even if they arent perfect, thanks.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    To be fair cops arent solving those problems either. also theres plenty of essays around the nuances of this subject for you to explore and analyze if you look it up.. not that we're all depending on you and your validation anyway

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    These aren't solvable problems, they will always exist. But while they can't be solved they can be mitigated. Saying murders happen therefore the concept of having police is wrong is ignoring the fact that there can be more or less murders. Less murders is good even if not perfect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    fyi cops are not out there stopping murders, they write the report after and if you're very special you'll get a detective that looks into it but that murder was not mitigated from happening by the existence of police

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›