I want to draw attention to the elephant in the room.

Leading up to the election, and perhaps even more prominently now, we’ve been seeing droves of people on the internet displaying a series of traits in common.

  • Claiming to be leftists
  • Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
  • Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
  • Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
  • Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
  • Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
  • Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism

When you look at an aerial view of these behaviors in conjunction with one another, what they’re accomplishing is pretty plain to see, in my opinion. It’s a way of utilizing the moral scrupulousness of the left to cut our teeth out politically. We get so caught up in giving these arguments the benefit of the doubt and of making sure people who claim to be leftists have a platform that we’re missing ideological parasites in our midst.

This is not a good-faith discourse. This is not friendly disagreement. This is, largely, not even internal disagreement. It is infiltration, and it’s extremely effective.

Before attacking this argument as lacking proof, just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?

By refusing to ever consider that those who do nothing with their time in our spaces but try to drive a wedge between us, to take away our power and make us feel helpless and hopeless, we’re giving them exactly that vector. I am telling you, they are using it.

We need to stop letting them. We need to see it for what it is, get the word out, and remember, as the political left, how to use the tools that we have to change society. It starts with us between one another. It starts with what we do in the spaces that we inhabit. They know this, and it’s why they’re targeting us here.

Stop being an easy target. Stop feeding the cuckoo.

  • showkosaki@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I 100% agree with this post. I do believe many of these attackers are sincere, but that it’s time to recognize it doesn’t matter and the end effect is the same as if they had acted in bad faith.

    They give permission to be cynical to the less informed who might otherwise feel guilt to support one candidate or the other. They create an argument that no one needs to pick a side, which a lot of people take comfort in because our politics are so divisive and polarizing that many don’t want to wade into them if they can stay above the fray.

    The message in the 2024 election should have been “Biden has been great, if you think he was bad you don’t realize what he’s had to deal with caused by Trump and the pandemic and the not-entirely real Democratic majority in the Senate which includes two turn-coats. His only issue is he’s old so let’s go with Harris.” That’s all. But that kind of messaging was never possible because most of the left wanted to always frame things by starting with their laundry-list of all the things they didn’t like about Biden to prove their independent thinker bona-fides, and then circle around and say “BUT here’s the thing-” which is lousy messaging.

    Even today, when it’s clear Biden fixed the economy and passed a ton of great legislation we can’t frame the discussion as “Biden was great and now Trump has ruined the economy and defunded all these programs that were working” because people still want to start by crapping on the Democrats and sabotaging their own case. It’s a great plan if the goal is to have the left perform weaker than they should have in all future debates and elections.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    There are an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims being made in this thread, especially wrt what these supposed maga-bot/trolls all claim or do.

    If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.

    As it stands, however, making broad insinuations about the ill intentions of anyone who disagrees with you is not very Nice, and is certainly not Assuming Good Faith.

    The mods here are very active, and very capable. We don’t need people starting witch hunts here to “root out the fake Leftists”, and based on OP and some others’ reactions in this thread, that’s clearly what’s happening here.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      43 minutes ago

      If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.

      We don’t need people starting witch hunts here to “root out the fake Leftists”

      These are contradictory statements.

      I won’t identify anyone who is claimed to be an example, specifically because of the valid concern raised in the second quote. I will say that the two examples that come most clearly to mind for the proof requested in the first quote are two people who are in that category of “talks CONSTANTLY about how voting for Democrats would be a terrible thing that no self-respecting leftist would EVER do for any reason”, who also claimed to be American, who also made mistakes that no American would make. One of them used non-American characters to punctuate a number, and then when it was pointed out they got confused and didn’t understand what people were pointing out that was weird about their number. Another claimed that they employed a bunch of people and paid them all $250k per year (and, again, seemed not to understand that this was a wild thing to claim when people pointed it out ).

      Is that proof positive that those people are working for the Russians? No, not really. Is it “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they are working for someone? Yes, to me. Certainly in conjunction with all the other circumstantial evidence about the way they behave. You use the standard straw man of “anyone who disagrees with you” being put in this category, but that is not at all what’s happening here. I disagree with people on Lemmy constantly and I very rarely think that this is what’s going on. However when I run into a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving, I start to think that the person might be a paid propaganda account.

      But regardless of that, talking about the problem in general is surely okay. Your implicit threat to have the mods shut us all down is a waste of time. Talk to the mods (I am sure that some people have), tell them about the post, let them do what they’re doing to do. This is 100% an active and important problem on the Fediverse and talking about it is no kind of bad faith. I do actually, halfway, agree that singling out any particular user to accuse, could be a problem even if you’re extremely sure. But that’s not what this is.

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m not an american (but anti-electoral nonetheless), and I do get the critique and think it is perfectly valid if one views things through liberal framework - vote for the lesser evil, minimize suffering, not voting is letting the bad candidate on getting the upper hand, etc.

    However, this isn’t an objective position but an ideological one, as it operates within lesser-evilism, coalitionism within capitalist institutions and having a definition of “the left” that generalizes them to essentially having to be “pro-democracy somewhat progressive liberals”, and any deviation makes them into a troll or a right winger or something like that.

    What is important to realize is that most leftists aren’t liberals - in fact, many leftists, particularly Marxists, view elections as:

    • A way to legitimize the class rule that leads into passivity among the working class who are being ruled over, essentially recognizing that this “tool that we are given” is just an illusion and leads to neutralization of worker power,

    • Enabling of ‘capitalist-tribalism’ in the form of “which capitalist manager do you support” which is seen in US through party loyalty and basically disarming the working class from realizing their own interests.

    Essentially, their goal isn’t to just “vote for the lesser evil” or “achieve the maximum good through the means we’re given” but to abolish the system entirely, and electorialism/voting is counter-productive in that regard due to legitimizing effect that it has that I mentioned previously. This does go against the “liberal left” and their goals, and being on the same political wing does not automatically mean there’s an alliance or shared goals, nor does it mean that two positions aren’t going to have antagonistic goals.

    Besides, why blame the left for the electoral failure who abstained from voting? Why not blame MAGA for voting in an enemy that goes against your interests (as in, people who have actually voted)?

    • millie@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Hopefully it serves to further demonstrate my point. It certainly has solidified its legitimacy for me.

      It’s also very helpful of them all to come draw attention to themselves so those who wish to identify and block them have an easy opportunity.

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I am highly curious to know what’s really going on there. Maybe it’s like 3 really influential accounts that are all very confident in themselves, and 50 other people who are looking for that all started imitating them, and at this point it’s mostly self-sustaining just from confused leftists. Maybe it’s a little team of 5 people all assigned to Lemmy, and they take shifts but only 1-2 of them are active at a time. Maybe it’s just one guy. Maybe it’s two whole separate teams, one for China and one for Russia, and they coexist with each other without being bothered or trying to coordinate all that much. Maybe it’s all in my head. Maybe some of them are American? That seems unlikely, I don’t think any GOP operation is this in-depth at this stage and some of them periodically make slip-ups that reveal that they’re not from the US even though they’re claiming to be, but who knows.

            I really would like to know the answer. I think I never will find out, but it would be fascinating.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Welcome to propaganda and people affected by it. You’re not safe from the stuff online.

  • dawnglider@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Happy International Worker’s Day. Every single leader of emancipatory movements in the history of labor rights would disagree with you, having fought and been very vocal against the different flavors of oppression in order to get the liberal concessions that you seem to cherish today. Hopefully if you participate, you might find some leftists celebrating in the crowd. Please don’t get too angry at them for not defending genociders, I’m sure a lot of them ended up voting for Kamala anyway, but at least they got the confirmation that even opposing genocide is too great a hurdle for them.


    I’m tired but I guess I’ll still address some of the traits you identified:

    Claiming to be leftists

    I’m a leftist

    Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left

    Okay that doesn’t sound like leftist behavior, you’re totally right. I just hope you don’t mean that “power possessed by the left” is the democratic party, but sure, that broadly sounds like liberals or feds.

    Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates

    There’s a point to which you can push liberal concessions for damage control or for actually gaining some more concessions. I think criticizing voting is healthy since it’s still playing the capitalist’s game and a liberal “democracy” with almost no wiggle room anymore, but considering how little effort it takes to vote I’ll always advocate to both play their game and also assume that nothing will come out of it without actual pressure.

    I’ve mostly seen people advocate for withholding their vote in the favor of some concession (please don’t do genocide), I’ve never seen someone say “don’t vote and also don’t do anything else”, but I’m sure they exist, you find all kinds of confused people online.

    Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party

    Is genocide disqualifying for a political party or not? I’m asking you, specifically, if you think that a party that commits (funds, arms, protects, justifies, excuses, does constant propaganda for) a genocide in the face of their own atrocities, while actively silencing the voices within their own ranks that speak out, is worth defending? Again, I think the idea was to hopefully change the democratic party to the radical position of “anti genocide”. That failure is on them, not the people who threatened not to vote for them.

    Not highlighting that issue is frankly criminal.

    Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”

    Yeah that’s leftism, that’s always been leftism, but again I hope to god you don’t mean that “leftist political power” here represents the democratic party, so I’m gonna assume you mean more broadly what they call “purity politics” and constant division in the left. I think it’s fair to criticize people to the right of you, I’m to the right of anarchists and I welcome their criticism, even when I don’t agree with it. If I spent my time shitting on them I think they would be completely legitimate in calling me out for someone with ulterior motives, or a reactionary shithead.

    Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system

    I want you to examine your own sentence just for a second. To disempower an attempt at legitimate engagement with the political system. Opposing genocide isn’t used as a moral cudgel against whatever 10 steps removed version of power this is (and I’m not criticizing the way you put it, quite the opposite), it’s used AGAINST GENOCIDE.

    People are out in the streets and criticizing liberal complicity because we talk about GENOCIDE not some vague questionable US foreign policy.

    Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism

    So that’s the democratic party, right? That’s why I’m confused because leftists are out in the street, even the most liberal ones with their “fight oligarchy” campaign, while the democrats are still out defending genocide, doing filibusters without a cause, and generally trailing so far behind the average population that it’s mind numbing. So I don’t know what you mean when you say “leftists”, because you seem to refer to two groups at the same time.

    Anyway, voting goes both way, you can’t pretend to vote in a vacuum for the lesser evil without recognizing that you empower them and their genocidal endeavors.

    And I’ll be a little more incisive: If you criticize a leftist of not caring about minorities (which I’ve seen a lot and is deeply ironic considering who did and didn’t vote for the dems) you open yourself to be criticized for having proudly voted and called on everyone else to vote for a party that does genocide, and having attacked the ones that tried to actually make a difference in shifting their position or using that moment to show what their true colors are.

  • kittenroar@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Let’s just get a few facts out of the way:

    • Genocide is the worst crime humanity is capable of
    • The US has a direct hand in multiple genocides
    • Record levels of homelessness in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
    • Death from preventable illnesses in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
    • Highest infant mortality in the western world in the richest nation on earth is unacceptable
    • Democrats are not interested in changing the status quo
    • Republicans want a return to chattel slavery
    • Neither party is willing to help us, nor will they ever allow us to vote third party by adding ranked choice or anything liek that
    • Therefore, our best bet to break the cycle is to collectively vote for, say, the green party

    You think leftists are unrealistic for being disgusted with Democrats? The genocide was live streamed to the world. Did you not see any of it? Did it not move you?

  • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    This post is beyond delusional. It’s like the meme about everything I don’t like is woke. The liberal version basically being everything I don’t like is a Russian/MAGA bot. Is it really that hard to believe that left leaning people don’t agree with the Democratic Party platform? You’re deeper in your bubble than you realize my friend.

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Oh look, someone who’s generalizing op then tries to discredit them! Way to prove their point

      • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They didn’t make any type of platform or political argument to even debate against. Basically saying that everyone who dislikes democrats is secretly a republican. That’s all I’m calling them on. Total nonsense.

        • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Misdirection, nice! That’s cuz this is not about platforms or any political argument, dr Troll

          • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 hours ago

            You’re goofy man. I don’t even know what your point is. OP said something. I said I disagreed with it. Epic troll by me I guess.

            • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Go to a politics or platforms community if you’re looking for a politic argument or stuff about platforms

  • NewDark@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    As a leftist:

    • True, It’s a piece of paper. If you think that will save us, you’re a dumbass.
    • Mostly True, Look up the ratchet effect.
    • Mostly False, we’ve had due process. It’s been unfair to minority communities, but in general it’s existed.
    • Mostly False, He was mildly better. This is faint praise given he was a demented fossil facilitating a genocide.
    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Mildly better. Well, if this post accomplished one thing it was self-identification of the people it is about.

      • NewDark@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Neat how you ignored the rest of the sentence there. Probably because those aren’t contestable points huh?

          • NewDark@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 hours ago

            This is faint praise given he was a demented fossil facilitating a genocide.

            You know what I meant. Being obtuse doesn’t help your case, it just makes you look like a debate pervert.

  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?

    This is the same kind of argument that the tankies use to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a CIA plant. At least they name the CIA, you seem to be pointing to an even more ambiguous “they” that are out to get us. This is a conspiracy theory, dress it up all you want but your pointing to some ambiguous “they” and blaming them for your problems with no proof.

    Occams razor is that they are leftists who hate the democratic party. They critique them more then the Republicans because the liberal side of lemmy covers that pretty well already, half the front page is shitting on trump right now. That’s good but at a certain point your beating a dead horse, everyone here already hates trump and thinks he’s bad, no point in reinforcing that past a point. A lot of people on here still have loyalty to the democratic party though that far exceeds the democrats loyalty to the left, so pointing that out can be effective and help change people’s minds instead of posting/commenting trump is hitler for the millionth time.

    • millie@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Your interpretation of Occam’s razor is that no one ever lies? Do you really think all human beings being honest about everything they say requires the least number of assumptions?

      • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        In a sense yes, people generally tell the truth more than they lie so the default assumption should be that someone is telling the truth, otherwise you enter into paranoia. That assumption can be broken when there is a clear gain from lying. Eg. You catch a thief outside the store they robbed they have a very clear reason to lie and say they were just walking by.

        You’re explanation on why they’re lying isn’t very clear. First off, you fail to name who these people are and leave it ambiguous to let the person reading fill it in with their enemy (maga, nazis, russians etc.) just like every other conspiracy theory. Since the subject isn’t clear neither is the motive, you just sort of fill that in with "they hate the left, why do they hate the left? What are they gaining from convincing maybe a couple dozen liberals that the democrats suck on a very marginal social media? This isn’t the politburo for the comintern, there is barely any power on here to diffuse, so why put effort into doing so when there are far larger platforms to influence.

        • millie@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          I’d like to draw a parallel to data security. Why make a strong password if nobody’s out there trying to break into accounts? Why secure your server’s ports if nobody’s going to attack them? Why take precautions against malicious collection of data to sell to third parties if we’re not sure who or how that data would be used?

          These are behaviors that we don’t know the specific motivations for, we don’t know the individual bad actors in question or who they’re working for or what their specific plans are. But we know that if someone calls you claiming to be Geeksquad and tells you to go buy a bunch of gift cards to read to them over the phone, you’re being scammed. We know that if someone pretends to be a representative of a company and comes asking for your password, you shouldn’t trust them. We know that if certain kinds of traffic are spamming your ports looking for vulnerabilities, they don’t mean well.

          Why? Because we are aware of the threat vector and can move to protect it before knowing the details of who in particular is planning on exploiting it. I don’t need to know specifically which hacker wants to break into my server to limit open ports. I don’t need to know who wants to steal my Steam account to know setting up 2fA is worthwhile.

          Assuming good faith in bad actors is a vulnerability. The exploit vector is an attack on the political power of the left. I don’t need to know specifically who is behind it. I could speculate. Maybe it’s MAGA, maybe it’s Russia, maybe it’s some foreign bot-farm being hired by some other authoritarian regime, but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that allowing the threat vector to remain open disempowers the left.

          Why Lemmy? Why a small niche leftist platform rather than a larger platform?

          Let’s say you’re a time traveler who hates punk music. What would be more effective to stop it before it starts? Sabotaging the planning for the Warped Tour in the 90s, or burning down CBGB in 1973?

          CBGB was a small club at the time, barely notable at all. The Warped Tour, on the other hand, was a massive endeavor involving dozens of bands and thousands upon thousands of punk and ska fans. But if you know your history, you know that CBGB was a small venue with a massive impact on the American punk scene. It was a place where a lot of the bands that we know today got their start and came up. The Warped Tour, on the other hand, while probably influential on 90s teenagers who got to go see 20 bands in person for 20 bucks, was mostly just riding the wave of punk’s popularity and capitalizing it.

          Targeting leftist spaces, especially small leftist spaces, could potentially be much more effective than targeting more general spaces. Lemmy in particular selects not only for leftists, but for anti-corporate, anti-establishment people with enough of an interest in tech and enough social media presence to jump on the bandwagon of a relatively unknown protocol just so they don’t have to rely on corporate social media. It has a barrier for entry that most of the public find to be either too daunting to bother to surmount, or that involves enough obscurity that they’re not even aware of it to begin with.

          Beehaw in particular has human-vetted signups and even has a history of defederating with instances that have open sign-ups in order to be able to deal with moderation. A lot of that moderation is literally just contending with social conservatives who show up spouting racism, queerphobia, sexism, and ablism.

          In other words, we are a small space that caters to a particular crowd of people well outside the mainstream politically, socially, and technologically. Small, niche spaces have a tremendous potential for resulting in wider-spread influence.

          It’s not about convincing us that democrats suck. Most of us aren’t particularly happy with the democratic establishment anyway. It’s about demotivating us and frustrating our internal communications. It’s about trying to sabotage a potential locus for resistance.

          And it isn’t just Lemmy. It isn’t even just the left that’s being targeted. We know social media is being used to pollute discourse and manipulate politics. We know there’s an artificial rightward push going on, and we know that it isn’t just the United States that’s being targeted with it. But anyone who wants to advance this artificial rightward push has a strong motivation to exploit any vulnerabilities that can be found in the US because of our position globally. Now that that position is crumbling, they have a strong motivation to make sure it doesn’t recover.

          We have a responsibility to address that threat vector no matter who those parties are.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I like to point out that Frederick Douglas worked for Lincoln even when Lincoln was not running on ending slvery.

    It’s amazing how many people on the ‘Left’ think that Douglas was a traitor to his principles.

    When the bring out the MLK letter from Birmingham Jail, I point out that King never explicitly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, even though one of his most important aides was gay. Suddenly, understanding the historic situation becomes important.

    • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Douglas spent the majority of Lincoln’s presidency mercilessly and publicly attacking him - claiming he was ‘working for him’ is not only fairly disingenuous but an extremely odd way to characterize their relationship

      Idk what your point is with LfB but that letter absolutely slaps.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        He attacked Lincoln after helping him get elected. Almost as if a War breaking out changed things.

        • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 hour ago

          … You have that backwards.

          If you’re actively curious and not just using this selectively to support your own stances on current events, here’s a pretty good resource that describes the bigger picture of their relationship

          Douglass opposed Lincoln both when he was a candidate and through most of the beginning of his term as president. Lincoln was, at first, a supporter of the American Colonization plan - which was a belief of some white abolitionists that blacks and whites could not live peacefully with each other, so they sought to emigrate the freed slaves to colonies in Africa. Douglass was justified in detesting that plan and condemning Lincoln’s support of it. Douglass went as far as to say of Lincoln’s presidency that he “has resolved that no good shall come to the Negro from this war.”

          I think there’s ample reason to think that Lincoln’s shift in perspective by the end of the civil war was a direct result of Douglass’s influence, but by no measure does anyone on ‘the left’ think of Douglass as a traitor to his morals. He was a patriot who fought tooth-and-nail for what was right, even in the face of compromise presented as ‘progress’.

            • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              21 minutes ago

              Check my edit. He campaigned for him after his first term (through which he actively opposed him), and only really saw him as an ally after the first 3 years through the civil war (and after Lincoln’s own perspective had shifted).

              Edit: keep in mind that Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation January 1st of 63, before Douglass had any interest in campaigning for him. He had literally already abolished slavery before Douglass threw his hat in for him

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Watch out for the following five fallacies, and the cuckoo is easy to spot:

    • oversimplification: false dichotomy, ignoring relevant factors
    • genetic fallacy: instead of focusing on what is being said, the cuckoo always focuses on who says it
    • straw man: cuckoos are really eager to put words into your mouth, and try to force you to defend claims you never did in first place
    • ignore refutation: if you prove without a shadow of doubt that the cuckoo’s claim is wrong, they’ll ignore your refutation and still use it to back up even dumber claims
    • ad nauseam: same claim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

    Then as you spot the cuckoo, the rest is easier - for example, IMO a sensible approach is to point out what the cuckoo is doing, to whoever might be reading your comment, while disengaging so you aren’t giving the cuckoo further time to sing.

    • millie@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That’s quickly becoming my approach. Point it out and then immediately block them and stop engaging. Once you block them, they can’t keep following you around spamming the same noise.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      straw man: cuckoos are really eager to put words into your mouth, and try to force you to defend claims you never did in first place

      This one is a really key tell. The people who spend most of their message emphasizing what it is that their opponents believe, and only in passing deal with what they believe (which tends to be along the lines of “well they all want to kill Palestinian babies but I don’t want that, so clearly you can see the difference”), and immediately start telling anyone who talks with them what they believe also… that’s an important signal.

      I think it is so popular because it is substantially lower-effort than engaging with anything the person is actually saying, and also t works on anything. You don’t have to be on the right side of the argument, you can just assign your opponent some awful crazy shit, and then get to work disagreeing with that.

  • ThiefOfNames she/her@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Many of these people legitimately hold these views. I have a friend who is absolutely a socialist who is still very much in favor of my country not aiding Ukraine as it would support “imperialism” in his eyes. My impression is that he and those like him are unwilling to ever compromise on any ideal they hold, even if it means not supporting any position whatsoever. Like you can debate him as much as you want about whether or not aiding Ukraine in any capacity is imperialism or not, but at the end of the day his main concern is not contributing to something he perceives as evil.

    That said, I do agree that many of these people aren’t being genuine. I sometimes wonder if he’s secretly an accelerationist or something. Many people that use the same talking points as him online certainly are, rather than fascists trying to take us down from the inside.

    • millie@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I would argue that people who hold genuinely socialist views who laser focus on disempowering the left are nothing more than useful idiots for authoritarians and can safely be sorted into the same box as actual infiltrators and parasites. The intent of individuals isn’t nearly as important as combating the behavior that’s being exploited.

  • ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Stupid thing is that it’s the humanity and empathy of the left that is both the draw and the weakness of the movement.

    Conservatives can come into leftist discourse spaces and either pose as the extreme leftists you describe, or even just the more reasonable end of the conservatives (non facist/maga types, rare as they are any more) an they’ll be engaged with in good faith. Since they’re ultimately not there for a proper discussion though it results in nothing more than creating chaos and arguments

    Liberal/leftists who walk into conservative spaces are greeted with scorn and derision, treated as lunatics from the start not worth listening to. Since the left would generally be coming in with honest intent though at best they waste their time shouting into an established echo chamber, or worse get convinced that there’s a good middle ground to work towards.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Since the left would generally be coming in with honest intent though at best they waste their time shouting into an established echo chamber, or worse get convinced that there’s a good middle ground to work towards.

      I tried going to conservative spaces on Lemmy. The liberals wouldn’t allow any dialogue. Not the conservatives, the liberals.

      • ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I’d need some examples to get what you mean here. My experiences, both personal and simply observed, is that you can you can roughly split both conservatives and liberals into two sub-groups, although the distinction on the liberal side is a lot more fuzzy.

        There’s the emotive/moralizing side that fight based on what they feel rather than any concrete justification. What’s right is decided simply by an assumption of how the world should work, either collaboratively or selfishly looking out for yourself only.

        Then there are the logical logical arguments. On the conservative side these end up being a lot more in the form of ‘I am right, you need to prove otherwise’ while liberals (myself guilty of it as well) will go through these elaborate deliberations backing one point with another and somehow hoping to convince these people who have already decided they’re right of their error.

        If you’ve ever tried beating your head into a brick wall you might recognize the feeling that last one, but it’s hardly an obstruction to dialogue, just a frustration of trying to engage rationally with largely irrational beings.

    • millie@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Absolutely. Conservatives have, unfortunately, sailed straight past us on political effectiveness in recent years. We’re spending our time wringing our hands about doing the right thing and cajoling one another into doing the same. Unfortunately in a lot of cases modern leftism favors atomizing based on who a particular segment sees as having sufficient moral purity over solidarity. Meanwhile, conservatives don’t really care about much of anything other than maintaining a socially conservative status quo. They’ll even let people they hate pretend to be part of the club if they debase themselves enough to be politically useful. At the same time, they’ll viciously attack anyone who isn’t politically useful to them.

      I’m not saying we ought to abandon our principles or start viciously attacking anyone who doesn’t toe the line of being politically useful, but we need to remember how to build coalitions and think strategically.

  • sexy_peach@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I think that leftists generally have a hard time calling out people who argue in bad faith

    • ThiefOfNames she/her@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      We should genuinely be banning all tankies and accelerationists on sight. Allowing them to poison the debate to the extent they do really is our greatest flaw and the only real “leftist infighting” I’ve ever really come across.

      Pretty sure leftist infighting is just a tankie dogwhistle at this point.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        that has been my thought for years now, i feel like basically all the annoying and divisive things you see are just outright astroturfing