I’m actually not mad about tankies themselves. It’s their arrogant & intolerant attitudes that frustrate me. Instead of politely considering where I’m coming from, and explaining why they think I’m wrong, they just condescend and block/ban. I’ve found it next to impossible to have open-minded & fair exchange of perspectives with them, which makes me wonder how TF they ever expect to change the mind of people like me.
I’ll admit at this point I have a fair amount of disdain for them, but mainly because they’ve earned it after numerous run-ins.
I disagree with that perspective as well, since there can be no question as to the fact Russia was the aggressor. However, I’m honestly not very knowledgeable on the history (and not really interested in learning it much beyond a summary). I do recall there being negative things in the news occasionally regarding Zelensky well before the war started, but I wasn’t paying much attention, so don’t recall what they were.
Even if I disagree, I’m still open to hearing the logic behind their stance. My impression is that there is no good guy on either side, so since those factors cancel each other out that leaves just judging who the aggressor was, so Putin loses this one in my mind. I’m mildly curious how his supporters see this any other way, tho.
wild, cause this describes pretty much every lib that i run into on here.
I never understood why “libs” are so broadly hated within the leftist spheres. Pro-capitalist stances in some strains of liberalism, sure, but at least in terms of human rights, equality, rule of law and such, it feels like we should have more common ground with them than this animosity implies.
the common ground assumption only holds if you think human rights and equality are achievable within capitalism. from my perspective this is the core disagreement.
liberals believe the system can be reformed to deliver those things, leftists generally think the system structurally prevents it. that’s a fundamental disagreement about what the problem is.
Pro-capitalist stances in some strains of liberalism
pro-capitalist isn’t a strain of liberalism, it’s the foundation. liberalism as a political philosophy emerged to defend private property and individual rights against feudal authority.
you can’t separate the human rights framework from the property rights framework it was built on.
‘rule of law’ under capitalism is the law of property. it protects the existing distribution of wealth and power. leftists who want to upend that distribution are not going to see that as ‘common ground’
Maybe we’re working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn’t be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.
Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won’t lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I’d rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we’re in a position to fix this shit.
‘at least they won’t lock us up’ is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.
the ‘best environment to work in’ assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.
also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.
crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.
Okay, we’re definitely working with different definitions then. I don’t see much of a point arguing about the history of the term and associated policies.
Today’s liberals are certainly better than conservatives or fascists when it comes to human rights and shit, and that’s the people we’re working with right now. We can labour over the sins of their ancestors, or we can attempt to influence their policies to our benefit until we’re in a position where we no longer need their cooperation.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms.
Counterpoint: wouldn’t a system that doesn’t even permit these conversations be a worse environment? If there are worse environments, doesn’t that make the others better by comparison? Isn’t the “least bad” equivalent to “the best”?
Alternatively, what would you posit as the best conditions for working towards toppling the system?
the ‘least bad is best by comparison’ logic is a race to the bottom with no floor. it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative
the ‘influence their policies’ approach has a +50 year track record of the left getting played. what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?
my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that’s what i see as actively undermining the system. i don’t care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.
Way to illustrate my point. I tried to be fair and honest & you give snark in return. Well, you get what you give, but I’m sure that’s the point - you prefer not to have actual conversation with someone of a different mindset. It feels good (momentarily) to tell yourself you’re “better than them,” but really it’s just cowardice. It takes maturity and true self-confidence to open yourself up to someone different than you & meet them halfway to honestly & open mindedly discuss things. Too difficult for a keyboard warrior who feels safer condescending because they might expose themselves to being proven wrong about something.
Honest? Sure - to the extent that most people’s limited self-awareness allows.
Open? When you said:
tbh swaying comfortable imperial core people was never really at the forefront of my motivations, so i think you’re safe.
That came across as preemptively dismissive, as if you assumed I was pro-capitalist and thus not worth bothering with.
The fact is capitalism is all I’ve known, but that doesn’t mean I’m enamored of it. My life path has been… unusual, in some significant ways that both give me broader view of things than most, while also having limited my education about them. I’ve had to figure out a lot of things on my own, which inevitably means there are significant gaps in my knowledge. But it also means I’ve come to some conclusions about things that most people never think about, or are (self-)aware enough to realize.
When I engage I try to speak what I know, and remain open to mulling over the responses if they contain something I don’t, or hasn’t considered. All I ask is that the same mindset be utilized in return so that an open exchange of information and perspectives may flow from it. This is how people come to understand one another, and that’s all I really want to do. If I learn something that helps me improve my understanding and perspectives on things, then all the better.
i’m at the point now where a significant portion of my weeks are spent organizing locally with other people to create spaces where anyone can get hot food, produce and supplies without needing money.
to me it’s not so theoretical that these things would be not only desired, but fought and sacrificed for. i have had close relatives with first hand experience fighting both for communism as well as against the nazis and that definitely colors my experience.
you seem like you’re being earnest about wanting to understand my perspective at least.
Lazy condescending bullshit. We are forced to make decisions every day which rely upon conclusions made up to that point. There’s nothing preventing those conclusions from being reevaluated again for later decision making. That is the whole point of this discussion, for example.
Now you’re only proving their complaint to be valid. Please don’t troll - it just makes your side look at bad as you likely think they are. If you haven’t anything to actually contribute to the discussion, then let us continue without rude distractions, please.
You’re not entirely wrong about corporate Democrats, but do try to keep in mind that - outside of most blue politicians - the bulk of the blue side constituency is made up of a significantly wider array perspectives than the red side - they’re just blue because there’s no serious alternative.
the bulk of the blue side constituency is made up of a significantly wider array perspectives than the red side
literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn’t a new experience for me either.
i live in a blue state, my reps at state and federal are essentially republicans with the serial numbers filed off. as long as you don’t openly say slurs it all flies under the radar in a blue state. money dominates the conversation and people challenging entrenched democrat incumbents get accused of helping the republicans anyways.
i don’t see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don’t even have a popular vote.
no, but this sounds a lot like some people i run into on here who spend all their time being mad about tankies
I’m actually not mad about tankies themselves. It’s their arrogant & intolerant attitudes that frustrate me. Instead of politely considering where I’m coming from, and explaining why they think I’m wrong, they just condescend and block/ban. I’ve found it next to impossible to have open-minded & fair exchange of perspectives with them, which makes me wonder how TF they ever expect to change the mind of people like me.
I’ll admit at this point I have a fair amount of disdain for them, but mainly because they’ve earned it after numerous run-ins.
Are those the douchebags that think Ukraine is the bad guy and side with Russia like the Republicans do? No thanks eww!
I disagree with that perspective as well, since there can be no question as to the fact Russia was the aggressor. However, I’m honestly not very knowledgeable on the history (and not really interested in learning it much beyond a summary). I do recall there being negative things in the news occasionally regarding Zelensky well before the war started, but I wasn’t paying much attention, so don’t recall what they were.
Even if I disagree, I’m still open to hearing the logic behind their stance. My impression is that there is no good guy on either side, so since those factors cancel each other out that leaves just judging who the aggressor was, so Putin loses this one in my mind. I’m mildly curious how his supporters see this any other way, tho.
wild, cause this describes pretty much every lib that i run into on here.
tbh swaying comfortable imperial core people was never really at the forefront of my motivations, so i think you’re safe.
I never understood why “libs” are so broadly hated within the leftist spheres. Pro-capitalist stances in some strains of liberalism, sure, but at least in terms of human rights, equality, rule of law and such, it feels like we should have more common ground with them than this animosity implies.
the common ground assumption only holds if you think human rights and equality are achievable within capitalism. from my perspective this is the core disagreement.
liberals believe the system can be reformed to deliver those things, leftists generally think the system structurally prevents it. that’s a fundamental disagreement about what the problem is.
pro-capitalist isn’t a strain of liberalism, it’s the foundation. liberalism as a political philosophy emerged to defend private property and individual rights against feudal authority.
you can’t separate the human rights framework from the property rights framework it was built on.
‘rule of law’ under capitalism is the law of property. it protects the existing distribution of wealth and power. leftists who want to upend that distribution are not going to see that as ‘common ground’
Maybe we’re working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn’t be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.
Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won’t lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I’d rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we’re in a position to fix this shit.
‘at least they won’t lock us up’ is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.
the ‘best environment to work in’ assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.
also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.
crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.
Okay, we’re definitely working with different definitions then. I don’t see much of a point arguing about the history of the term and associated policies.
Today’s liberals are certainly better than conservatives or fascists when it comes to human rights and shit, and that’s the people we’re working with right now. We can labour over the sins of their ancestors, or we can attempt to influence their policies to our benefit until we’re in a position where we no longer need their cooperation.
Counterpoint: wouldn’t a system that doesn’t even permit these conversations be a worse environment? If there are worse environments, doesn’t that make the others better by comparison? Isn’t the “least bad” equivalent to “the best”?
Alternatively, what would you posit as the best conditions for working towards toppling the system?
the ‘least bad is best by comparison’ logic is a race to the bottom with no floor. it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative
the ‘influence their policies’ approach has a +50 year track record of the left getting played. what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?
my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that’s what i see as actively undermining the system. i don’t care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.
Way to illustrate my point. I tried to be fair and honest & you give snark in return. Well, you get what you give, but I’m sure that’s the point - you prefer not to have actual conversation with someone of a different mindset. It feels good (momentarily) to tell yourself you’re “better than them,” but really it’s just cowardice. It takes maturity and true self-confidence to open yourself up to someone different than you & meet them halfway to honestly & open mindedly discuss things. Too difficult for a keyboard warrior who feels safer condescending because they might expose themselves to being proven wrong about something.
believe me, i am surrounded with pro US/NATO libs pretty much every day. it’s not a unique position.
do you think i’m not being honest or open? i am not interested in people defending capitalism. i have room for plenty of other views.
Honest? Sure - to the extent that most people’s limited self-awareness allows.
Open? When you said:
That came across as preemptively dismissive, as if you assumed I was pro-capitalist and thus not worth bothering with.
The fact is capitalism is all I’ve known, but that doesn’t mean I’m enamored of it. My life path has been… unusual, in some significant ways that both give me broader view of things than most, while also having limited my education about them. I’ve had to figure out a lot of things on my own, which inevitably means there are significant gaps in my knowledge. But it also means I’ve come to some conclusions about things that most people never think about, or are (self-)aware enough to realize.
When I engage I try to speak what I know, and remain open to mulling over the responses if they contain something I don’t, or hasn’t considered. All I ask is that the same mindset be utilized in return so that an open exchange of information and perspectives may flow from it. This is how people come to understand one another, and that’s all I really want to do. If I learn something that helps me improve my understanding and perspectives on things, then all the better.
same, you really can’t escape its influence.
i’m at the point now where a significant portion of my weeks are spent organizing locally with other people to create spaces where anyone can get hot food, produce and supplies without needing money.
to me it’s not so theoretical that these things would be not only desired, but fought and sacrificed for. i have had close relatives with first hand experience fighting both for communism as well as against the nazis and that definitely colors my experience.
you seem like you’re being earnest about wanting to understand my perspective at least.
“A conclusion is the place where you got tired thinking.”
Lazy condescending bullshit. We are forced to make decisions every day which rely upon conclusions made up to that point. There’s nothing preventing those conclusions from being reevaluated again for later decision making. That is the whole point of this discussion, for example.
And I’m suggesting reading more an Bd reevaluation of your own. Also, you’re the one getting nasty.
Move to Russia then boy
Now you’re only proving their complaint to be valid. Please don’t troll - it just makes your side look at bad as you likely think they are. If you haven’t anything to actually contribute to the discussion, then let us continue without rude distractions, please.
i use she/her in case you are unable to read display names
That’s nice
you should edit your comment, or are you just really invested in proving my point?
it’s uncanny how for both blue and red maga it’s the same playbook, just different foreign country they demonize
also thank you i’m fine staying in the us, i like making rackys and owning guns
You’re not entirely wrong about corporate Democrats, but do try to keep in mind that - outside of most blue politicians - the bulk of the blue side constituency is made up of a significantly wider array perspectives than the red side - they’re just blue because there’s no serious alternative.
literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn’t a new experience for me either.
i live in a blue state, my reps at state and federal are essentially republicans with the serial numbers filed off. as long as you don’t openly say slurs it all flies under the radar in a blue state. money dominates the conversation and people challenging entrenched democrat incumbents get accused of helping the republicans anyways.
i don’t see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don’t even have a popular vote.
❤️