This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

全 83 件のコメント

[–]RhaganaDoomslayerA Plastic Baggie Full of Fuck Beef[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (0子コメント)

Welp. This thread has turned to shit. Locking it until more mods are online and we can figure out what to do.

[–]TolPM71 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think the alt label is in danger of complete irrelevancy if it's just used to stand in for "I don't like".

[–]3spacemenandababy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hasn't it always? There was never anything alt about the alt right. It was always meaningless.

[–]pyromancer93 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I will confess, I liked it much better when the sides called each other "Obots" and "purity ponies." Or themselves "pragmatists" and "the democratic wing of the democratic party." "Alt-left" and "liberal" are much less creative.

This fight has been going on forever and in all honesty it's as much about the personal dislike between people who've been feuding for years as it is about genuine political differences.

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (53子コメント)

53% of white women voted for Trump. 94% of black women for hillary. The demonization of Hillary Clinton this election season was a spit in the face of people of color everywhere. ESPECIALLY WOMEN OF COLOR.

Liberals trip over themselves defending Sarandon, but forget she is completely unaffected by trump. Wanna talk about white priviledge?

PLEASE STOP THROWING MINORITIES, THE HANDICAPPED, LGBT COMMUNITY UNDER THE BUS TO MAKE A POINT TO THE DNC.

Its failed strategy anyway and has literally no record of success. In any party, in any arena of politics. none. zip. nodda.

trying to split the left is disgusting and racist.

Edit: just in case anyone missed it. 53% 53% 53%. 53 fucking percent. That is what non voting, voting third party gets you. I know people hate to here this but it doesn't make it any less true.

[–]Ahabs_PeglegSocial Justice Balrog 50 ポイント51 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The left is legitimately split and has been like for at least a century: there are socialists/social democrats in the US and those who are not. If Clinton liberals want to be honest and say "no thank you" to parts of the social democratic platform, that's totally fine. We can still work together and have an honest basis for cooperation.

However, saying that anyone who isn't onboard with neoliberalism or who wants a social democratic platform is deaf to identity politics is just bullshit and wrong, especially since the greatest beneficiaries of a more robust welfare state would likely be working-class women of color with children (take a look at any of the fight-for-fifteen actions) and historically 20th century socialist movements were grounded in intersectionality and agitated on behalf of broader rights for all in solidarity.

[–]srhbutts 54 ポイント55 ポイント  (16子コメント)

"voting for hillary" does not mean uncritical support, or even support: one can make a pragmatic choice for what they fundamentally believe to be a horrible candidate simply because the alternative is exponentially worse.

the majority of black voters under 30 voted for sanders, not clinton, and they were the most likely to be deeply affected by the economic policies of the democrats.

i do agree that there's a subset of leftists that's particularly bad at listening to concerns of voters of color, but that's a far step from "all radical/anti-capitalist perspectives are racist." not to mention it obfuscates the fact that, you know, capitalism is racist. black folks were disproportionately likely to lose their homes during the financial crisis, they were targeted aggressively for predatory loans, etc.

you mentioned "throwing LGBT people under the bus." i'm trans, i feel thrown under the bus by a strategically & morally indefensible belief that neoliberalism is somehow compatible with social justice.

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

94% of black women still voted for Hillary though, after Sanders was defeated.

You being trans doesn't make my statement any less true. By not voting for a unified left, I.E. the Dems, you are fucking over vulnerable populations including your own.

The alternative is always the Republicans. ALWAYS. You can fight them or not. But if not, don't call yourself a fighter.

[–]srhbutts 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (11子コメント)

94% of black women did not vote for hillary, because the turnout rate for black women was not 94%. almost 40% of eligible black voters didn't vote. what of the black women that felt so disenfranchised that they didn't bother showing up?

no one has a moral obligation to vote for people that will participate in their oppression, this is such a backwards view of power and who wields it. why does "unifying" mean "the people need to meet the dems where they are" and not "the dems need to meet the people where they are"? why is the moral chastisement reserved for the voters, and not the people who wield power over their lives?

[–]menandskyla 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

trumps margin in michigan was smaller than the decrease in turnout in just detroit

[–]hallofromtheoutside 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How much was that decrease in turnout in just Detroit attributable to the VRA being gutted?

[–]menandskyla 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

no new voting restrictions in michigan

[–]hallofromtheoutside 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

True. That's a bad on my part.

However, the VRA being gutted seems to be forgotten when people talk about the decrease in turnout for this election, which is frustrating.

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm sorry but this is very much misleading. Black women were one of, if not the main reason Sanders could never beat Hillary in the primary. They supported Hillary, they did not want Bernie.

The alternative on election day was Trump. You got him.

[–]srhbutts 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (5子コメント)

none of this addresses any of the points i made?

if the voter turnout had been as high percentage-wise as it was for obama (either time!), trump would've been defeated. why is there no responsibility laid upon the democrats for their positions, and how those positions alienated people and put the country and the world at risk?

again:

why does "unifying" mean "the people need to meet the dems where they are" and not "the dems need to meet the people where they are"? why is the moral chastisement reserved for the voters, and not the people who wield power over their lives?

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Voters are those representatives. They are you and me whether we like it or not. Voting requires responsibility, there is a reason children are not allowed to vote. It's an adult responsibility! They are your representatives! You have to be often pragmatic and more importantly strategic. Its a game, you have to win as much of what you want as you can.

"politics is just warfare without bloodshed" - Chairman Mao

[–]NoxRaMenshevik's would've won -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

if the voter turnout had been as high percentage-wise as it was for obama (either time!), trump would've been defeated. why is there no responsibility laid upon the democrats for their positions, and how those positions alienated people and put the country and the world at risk?

You mean like the gutting of VRA that the radical leftist never talk about in this context ?

[–]Slybak -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

why is the moral chastisement reserved for the voters, and not the people who wield power over their lives?

Because voters put those people into power.

[–]srhbutts 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (1子コメント)

this implies the choices given to voters are not mediated by larger institutional forces out of their control

[–]depressedrobotclown 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The alternative is always the Republicans. ALWAYS.

Couldn't establishment democrats just go left and actually support their progressive constituents. Why are we blaming voters when the party isn't doing its job?

[–]NoxRaMenshevik's would've won -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their constituents voted against that.

(not to mention, every democratic president that has won in the last 50 years has been a centrist. The progressives are not a huge block of voters, even though they claim otherwise. It's a sad state, but it's the reality we live in)

[–]3spacemenandababy 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When people on the right or centre don't vote for you, that's your fault and you need to reach out, when people on the left don't vote for you, that's their fault and you need to insult them until they love you. Surely you can see the flaw in this genius strategy.

Not that that really matters because it wasn't hardcore lefties that swung the election, but low information voters who might've voted populist but didn't vote for Hillary.

[–]Mumawsan 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I know that not reading articles before responding in the comments section is something of a reddit tradition, but I want to point out that you go from angrily disagreeing with the author to angrily agreeing to a non-sequitor and then sum up by passionately agreeing with his thesis. I know ... the title ... but, really?

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I've watched the left slowly get highjacked by Russian propaganda for 8 years now. I started taking note in 2009, around when MJ died. Now nearly every liberal website has at least one columnist who has worked or written for RT (Putins propaganda network). I'm not going to let it slide anymore.

Their goal is to capitalize on the suburban, mostly white, "liberals" who in a pathetic attempt, try to make the Democrats go further left by getting whipped into a pipe dream over purity. But there is no such thing because no one will ever agree on such an absurd concept. Because there is no definitive definition of moral "purity".

So Russian launches hashtags like #bernieorbust, #jillnothill, #demexit, pushing those who identify as the "pure" left to demonize Democrats, demoralize the electorate, promote voter apathy, and essentially hand the white house over to right wing lunatics....all at the expense of minorities and the vulnerable.

Because "pure" voters have it "all figured out", they don't have introspection and thus can never alter their views or tactics.

The major change in this last election is Russia has now also propagated the far-right. Its no coincidence their geo-political ideology in regards to isolationism are basically the same. Russia utilizing the blind fervent far-left and far-right was highly effective.

Here is some cold hard truth about politics in America.

  1. Democracy here will always favor a two party system. That's how it was set up, that's how it has been for hundreds of years now and that's not going to change.

  2. There are no such thing as heroes. Bernie sanders made some compromising votes, I.E. voting for the funding of the Iraq war, Voting for the war in Afghanistan. Yet, the magic purity candidate escapes all slanders from purists.

  3. Democracy owes you nothing. We could have no corruption at all, the purist of candidates, and if non of your own personal beliefs make it into law, that's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with you being unpopular. The system in this case is no less pure or uncorrupted. As long as this reality remains you are owed nothing, and you must play the cards you are dealt.

  4. Liberalism should be about looking out for the vulnerable the best you can. Not looking for superman. Not placing your "principles" over the reality of being effective.

  5. Winning matters. If you can't win, your political ideology means jack shit.

[–]Ahabs_PeglegSocial Justice Balrog 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've watched the left slowly get highjacked by Russian propaganda for 8 years now.

Infowars dot com is now just a mainstream conservative website and liberals are the new 'woke' Alex Jones.

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

its actually interesting you bring that up because networks like infowars, drudge report, threads on reddit, and even TYT were not obviously paid by Russia but were very much ripe for manipulation. They just needed a slight nudge.

[–]Mumawsan 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

We agree on so much, and I really really feel your anger at the way that the left has been divided, although I'm not sure how much outside meddling was ever needed. I think the whole idea of the "alt-left" is a scapegoat created by reactionaries, and to see it embraced by a liberal writer on such a big stage really infuriated a lot of people, me included. Perhaps too much is made of the leftist/liberal divide, but from the wording in your post it seems like you are unclear on the difference. At any rate I would 100% agree that this is a terrible time to indulge in purity politics and a really fucking great time for us all to start working together.

[–]pyromancer93 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. This is the latest incarnation of a very old fight that's been going on for some time. It's just amplified by the one-two punch of social media and the dominant wing of the Democratic Party suffering huge blows that have badly weakened it compared to say, a decade ago.

[–]menandskyla 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Now nearly every liberal website has at least one columnist who has worked or written for RT (Putins propaganda network).

this says a lot more about the state of journalism than anything else. There are just not a lot of outlets that pay journalists good wages anymore, and russia has decided it's advantageous for them to spend money on the cause.

How many liberal outlets have at least one reporter who used to work for the BBC? The BBC is also an outlet funded by a foreign government. Is hiring a former BBC employee disqualifying?

[–]BoscotheBear 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wow, pretending RT and the BBC are in any way comparable? In MY Ghazi?!!

[–]WildfireDarkstar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, sheesh. Not to mention that the rather byzantine manner in which the BBC is funded was specifically designed to avoid making it properly "government funded," and prevent the exact sort of conflict of interest that RT and its ilk are prime examples of. It's a false equivalency, and it's embarrassing.

[–]menandskyla 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I genuinely don't understand why someone would distrust an entire news org because one employee used to work somewhere else - I find that very embarrassing. Thank you for spelling out what you see as an important difference between the two news orgs, that's a better answer.

[–]3spacemenandababy 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

53% of white women voted for Trump. 94% of black women for hillary. The demonization of Hillary Clinton this election season was a spit in the face of people of color everywhere. ESPECIALLY WOMEN OF COLOR.

None of this post makes the slightest bit of sense. You keep screaming that 53% of white women voted Trump, do you think they're all Jill Stein fans? Or white feminists? Nah, no-one loved Hillary like white feminists, the people who voted against her are the many women who aren't feminists at all.

And Demonisation? Do you remember 2008? It was much worse than this. Clinton took some nasty, dog whistle swipes at Obama. By contrast last year we got Bernie saying "No-one wants to talk about your emails", taking the high ground and refusing to attack a catastrophic weakness that ultimately contributed to Clinton's loss. 2016 wasn't demonisation, it was criticism, and it speaks volumes of Clinton that she was unable to handle it.

By the way, I've actually looked into the numbers and everything I've found indicates that far more 2008 Clinton voters defected to McCain than Bernie voters defected to anyone (fuck that was a nasty year). Obama of course, still won despite facing far more obstacles than Clinton did in 2016, largely because highly invested primary voters aren't really numerous enough to swing anything.

Liberals trip over themselves defending Sarandon, but forget she is completely unaffected by trump. Wanna talk about white priviledge?

Liberals can't get enough of attacking Sarandon, usually because she's the only example of the straw bernite they can find. The left doesn't particularly go out on a limb to defend her either. Remember, most of Bernie's support is young and poor, but by all means make a wealthy old woman the face of it, not erasure at all.

PLEASE STOP THROWING MINORITIES, THE HANDICAPPED, LGBT COMMUNITY UNDER THE BUS TO MAKE A POINT TO THE DNC.

You have failed to provide any evidence that this has happened. Indeed none of the many people I met screaming about BernieBros have any evidence of this. Probably because it did not in fact happen. Roughly 90% of Democrats voted Democrat in 2016, which is roughly the same percentage as 2012, 2008 and almost every election. Around 10% of Democrats always switch sides to the Republicans, and yet we never see these people blamed for 'costing us the election'. If people on the right don't vote for you it's considered a failure of the campaign and the candidate and you should reach out, if people on the left don't vote for you it's considered a personal failing in them and they should be insulted until they love us again.

If you want to talk about failed strategies, then this is one. There is a direct analogue between what you're talking about now and 2000, when the Democrats lost, and fixated on the Green Party and dodgy electoral shenanigans, and thus convinced themselves they didn't need to change, and then lost again.

trying to split the left is disgusting and racist.

Then please by all means, stop doing it. Right now the primary people splitting the party are powerful, vengeful Clinton supporters who see attacking Sanders fans as a way to avoid answering for the fact that they just lost an election. They just started a pointless faction fight over the DNC chair, smearing the left's black Muslim candidate as an anti-semite. So please, don't you fucking dare talk about who's splitting the party and acting racist after that.

Clinton lost, and people will suffer because she lost. You don't get to blame the left for that. You won the primary, you fielded your bad candidate, and you dismissed our warnings, and you lost. Bernie would have won, so don't you dare talk about how our idealism is hurting the marginalised, when you are shutting the door on popular economic policy so you don't have to give up your centrist ideals.

[–]CaelrieNew Mod, Same Great Oppression! 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Liberals trip over themselves defending Sarandon, but forget she is completely unaffected by trump. Wanna talk about white priviledge?

I think most aren't defending her at all, especially after her comments that were favorable to Trump.

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wish you were right. I really do. But left wing outlets are still rewarding her and giving her a platform to spread her awful voter apathy and willingness to screw over people of color.

[–]CaelrieNew Mod, Same Great Oppression! 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I saw a salon.com essay about how she was right, but it was written by a right-wing extremist. They hire them sometimes for the sake of appearing even-handed.

[–]AsteroidSparkSterling Jim Worshiper 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

53% of Trump's votes were white women, that does not equal 53% of white women voting for him.

[–]Mumawsan 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would be worse! You mean that only 53% of white women who voted voted for Trump, I think.

[–]tebrasd☠Skeleton Justice Warrior☠ 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

um no its 53% of all white women that voted, voted for trump. If you stayed home and did not vote, than you are part of the problem. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/who-voted-for-donald-trump-white-men-and-women-most-responsible-for-new-president-elect-voting-data-a7407996.html

[–]Ahabs_PeglegSocial Justice Balrog -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think that's exactly what she's saying.

[–]WildfireDarkstar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Er, no, she's not. "53% of Trumps' votes were white women" is manifestly not the same thing as "53% of all white women than voted, voted for Trump." And /u/tebrasd is correct. If you try to interpret it the other way, you wind up with Trump getting 114% of the vote. Which I don't think even he's dared to argue on Twitter.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about the "if you stayed home and did not vote..." part. In which case: derp, my apologies.

[–]-Guardsman-Not Technically Illegal -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This.

What the hard left sneeringly calls identity politics, I call civil rights.

And no more of this bullshit about Clinton and Trump being two sides of the same coin. Is Clinton more right-wing than most Democratic voters? Without a doubt. Is she out of touch with many of the people she purports to champion? Clearly. But do you believe for a second that she would try to outlaw abortion, strip millions of health care and food stamps, undermine LGBT rights, fuel the flames of white nationalism, go to war with the media, science and the judicial branch, and build a cabinet of yes-men intent on destroying the very departments they are appointed to lead?

[–]SuperNES_Chalmerss 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just keep telling them .....53%. That number is important because they can't run from it and its utterly embarrassing. Essentially "we don't give a flying fuck about women of color, fuck them"

[–]ellenoksmashy smashy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is an absolutely fantastic article.
I hope liberals see this and think good and long about it, because woah it's on point.

[–]frogmanfrompond -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Alt-Left really is a thing but it's not at all what the Vanity Fair writer thought it was. They even have a very bizarre website: https://altleft.com