Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I agree with all of this, and I do tend to think that we should ignore the worst takes, but I guess I don't know how we do that practically speaking. Like, in the context of organization meetings, if there's a person who's in righteous orthodox mode, they will try to push their will onto the group. You have to engage them somehow in that context.

And online, sure. On a thread like this, that's easy to do. But social media virality in general does make it harder to ignore the hottest takes when they are the ones dominating the spotlight of conversation. Maybe it's gotten less relevant now, as the craziness of the right wing is on full display. I dunno.

I think describing a specific behavior or action you dislike is going to be more effective than making it about the identity or ideology of the person doing it:

"I know most BLM activists ( or insert whatever group here) are fine but a couple of the more extreme ones are just as orthodox and tribal as the chumps at the Federalist"

Isn't going to be as well received as 

"I think it's probably a bad idea to dox people or vandalize public property, no matter who is doing it".

Again though, I think this is an issue with humans in general, not just lefty internal politics.  

Edited May 24 by Larry of the Lake

[DMC]

43 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Could you maybe inform me of a way to critique something that I find problematic in a way that you don't find to be orthodox? I'm open to suggestions.

You can critique things whatever way you like.  I honestly do not care.  But you started this thread, at least ostensibly, asking for responses to your query.  The above is my honest response to your questions.  I understand it's not a response you would like, but thus is that nature of discussion boards.

46 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The people who regurgitate it are the ones who clearly misuse the concepts. People who use the presence of micro-aggressions as red lines to call people out. Or people who use the notion of intersectionality ("speaking as an X-Y-Z") to shut others down when they disagree. That's using the concept as a bludgeon, it's a clear misuse of the original idea (which can in fact be quite handy to understand complicated circumstances), and it's evidence that they're regurgitating academic stuff without thinking about it.

Ok.  And who on this board is doing that?  Or has ever done that?  You keep on railing against "the left" as this amorphous scapegoat.  And, as pretty much everyone has allowed throughout these discussions, of course you're right that there are certain people like that.  But you continually harping on it for no apparent reason just smacks of whining for whining's sake.

49 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's the people who don't accept exchanges of ideas that I am literally trying to focus on.

Well, maybe try to engage with all of us that are not in any way what you describe and are on the message board you are posting on instead of complaining about these other people that none of us can defend because, ya know, it's not what any of us said or believe or engage in.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But because the orthodox are steeped in the language and the cultural signifiers of the left, maybe they often just sound like people full of passion to a lot of others on the left. Okay, maybe some are a little nutty, but so what? They’re not harming anyone, certainly not like the extremists on the right are. Why are you so focused on bringing down our side when the other side is so much worse? Just whose side are you on??

And with that, the orthodox have another person on their side of the line that they drew in the first place.

Aren't you the one who's a little quick to draw (or embrace) an arbitrary line between the reformist/activist left and the cultural/slacktivist left? At a glance, I'd say you underestimate the potential of what you view as mere performative acts to bring about actual changes in society.

 

[Jace, Extat]

I think it's important to be able to critique one's own side/positions without being ostracized: Hello, Republican Party

 

Meanwhile, I think there's three types of non-Republican/non-"independents" 

1) Rearing motivated - They vote for "liberals" or Democrats, end of insight. Anti-Republican gestation or pro-Democrat gestation in formation of worldview/lever pulling is irrelevant. They vote Democrat. 

2) Interest motivated - They're getting something out of Democratic Party advancement. Could be anything: Pro-Union, Anti-Cop Killings, Pro-Socialism, Anti-Fascist. Some sense of return on voting effort. 

3) Response motivated - Generally young, stupid, "well" """""""" educated """"""", uninformed about actual life outside of classroom or twitter. They don't want anything except for you to know that they don't want what you want. 

 

Obviously the Republicans have literal fascists running their shit. Have literal militant groupings and have displayed intention to overthrow democracy. If I was your dictator there wouldn't be any Republicans in this country, not after Jan. 6 

I ain't your dictator, don't really wanna be. Coexistence is the only path forward. 

I cannot alter the worldviewings and political monstrosities of the right-wing. 

Will not abdicate cognizance of the left-wing's deficiencies simply because it is inconvenient to some over-nurtured and poorly, though extensively, educated imbeciles who think that every thought that passes through their self-important heads is a sociological dictate from a higher power. 

Just my thoughts. 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

I ain't your dictator, don't really wanna be. Coexistence is the only path forward. 

Talk about self-importance....

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

I.also think that for the most part the people whose identity is part of the ideas that you are trying to change are not going to be changed by any dialog. MAGA Trump fans are like this as an example - they aren't just liking Trump for his policies or his viewpoints, they like being a part of his movement. They have social, personal and cultural identities tied to his infallibility and success. You can't reason with them any more than you can reason with someone rooting for their sports team.

Now, sometimes that is frustrating because those identities should be malleable. Other times - like when you tell trans people that they should be fine with being dead named and given a third gender they don't want - that is not particularly reasonable. In either case you're likely not going to have success yelling at them about how they should be less orthodox about their identity.

So to me the better question is "how do I convert someone to a different belief" and the best way is through friendship, compassion and familiarity. It is not and will never be based on the rightness of your arguments. As someone who deeply wishes truth and rationality would work that hurts me to admit, but it is true anyway. Maybe you'll have better success with our AI overlords, but given their training data is Facebook, 4chan and this board I don't think you will.

[Raja]

15 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

 More recently, I've tried to be more careful in my language

10 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

You guys are either just profoundly lazy, or rendered utterly stupid by your mistrust of me.

I like that it took about 10 posts to get here

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I think describing a specific behavior or action you dislike is going to be more effective than making it about the identity or ideology of the person doing it:

"I know most BLM activists ( or insert whatever group here) are fine but a couple of the more extreme ones are just as orthodox and tribal as the chumps at the Federalist"

Isn't going to be as well received as 

"I think it's probably a bad idea to dox people or vandalize public property, no matter who is doing it".

Again though, I think this is an issue with humans in general, not just lefty internal politics.  

Certainly the general dynamic of orthodoxy I'm talking about reflects something that can (and probably has been) found in everyone at some point. It's basically the politics of panic.

Some people are more prone to panic than others, with the people most innately threat sensitive tending to be right wing. I don't think that the most orthodox people on the left are necessarily more innately susceptible to threat, but I do think that certain cultural structure or incentives can make it more or less likely for the people in a community or subculture to feel panicked and to engage in the politics of panic.

For instance, if a subset of individuals use language and narratives that conflate discomfort and insult with violence and oppression, isn't it almost inevitable that at least some of those individuals will feel embattled enough to engage in the politics of panic? This is not to say that their particular grievances are invalid, but the framing of them allows for no sense of weight or perspective beyond full panic.

And the point of my original post is that I am trying to refer to a certain subset of individuals, perhaps an informal subculture, or maybe something more incidental, that only sometimes seems like a subculture. Who do indeed conflate discomfort and insult with violence, who treat micro-aggressions as indistinct from the macro-sort, who often shut people out of conversations when anyone disagrees.

I linked to this article before, and it's a great attempt to constructively push against illiberal tactics that are often employed in progressive organizations, a trend that has been causing tremendous dysfunction within those organizations. Like you, he doesn't really go for an identity based critique, just the style.

https://forgeorganizing.org/article/building-resilient-organizations

And that surely makes sense, in terms of having any hope to persuade. But most of what he's critiquing obviously corresponds to a certain type of lefty. Most people in the world accepted the Woke label not because the right wing distortions were valid, but because they see these certain obnoxious people as they are, and they reach for a name to describe them.

I agree that in certain contexts maybe trying to typify them like that is counterproductive. But in terms of just acknowledging that it happens rather than gaslight people, and even just discussing it amongst ourselves in a more removed setting like this thread, wouldn't it be helpful to have to language to talk about it? That was what I was trying to get at with my first post, and subsequently as well.

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

You can critique things whatever way you like.  I honestly do not care.  But you started this thread, at least ostensibly, asking for responses to your query.  The above is my honest response to your questions.  I understand it's not a response you would like, but thus is that nature of discussion boards.

Well, similarly, you can comment as you like. But this answer is really a non-response to my question. You had just told me that the way I am criticizing orthodox types is itself enforcing an orthodoxy. So I asked you how can I raise a critique in a way that you wouldn't find orthodox. And you responded with a shrug. 

Dismissive criticism is very easy to give. I'm willing to take that kind of stuff as long as there's also some sort of effort made toward a constructive critique. Beyond your initial attempt to finally speak frankly with me, I don't get the sense that you're willing to put in more thought on this matter beyond the dismissive critique. Which is your prerogative, but if that's the case then you've got nothing left to say here that I find worthwhile. I welcome more substantive input, but you're free to remain clenched.

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, maybe try to engage with all of us that are not in any way what you describe and are on the message board you are posting on instead of complaining about these other people that none of us can defend because, ya know, it's not what any of us said or believe or engage in.

Perhaps this is the heart of why you seem so irritated, though I find it puzzling. I mean, if Joe Biden does something stupid, people on the thread will kvetch about it, right? Just because people on the thread are not themselves the problem I'm talking about doesn't mean that it's not a problem worthy of talking about. 

This stuff can have real world effects, and yet people tend to not want to talk about it:

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/

I think it's worth talking about. Feel free to use your time as you wish, but why would talking about this stuff irk you so much?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Aren't you the one who's a little quick to draw (or embrace) an arbitrary line between the reformist/activist left and the cultural/slacktivist left? 

In the confines of my post, sure, I oversimplified. There's plenty of room for overlap between the Reformist left and the Cultural left. And I didn't mean to say that the cultural left doesn't engage in proper activism, just that the worst of this stuff tends to take the slacktivist form. But not all of it! The Evergreen State College fiasco is not the scare story that right wingers wanted it to be, but it was an example of cultural left orthodox types taking things to illiberal extremes via old fashioned in-person mobilization.

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

At a glance, I'd say you underestimate the potential of what you view as mere performative acts to bring about actual changes in society.

Again, given how I wrote it here, that's a valid criticism. I did reference Richard Rorty in that section you're referring to, and in Achieving Our Country, he makes the point that the Cultural Left did quite a lot in terms of fighting against the sadism that is pervasive in American culture. It's not to say that there is no value, but when left unchecked and without other more practical prerogatives things can get toxic.

Anyway, thank you for coming at this post with a reasoned critique of the actual content that's not simply dumping on me for posting it.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

6 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I.also think that for the most part the people whose identity is part of the ideas that you are trying to change are not going to be changed by any dialog. MAGA Trump fans are like this as an example - they aren't just liking Trump for his policies or his viewpoints, they like being a part of his movement. They have social, personal and cultural identities tied to his infallibility and success. You can't reason with them any more than you can reason with someone rooting for their sports team.

For these orthodox types, I'm not necessarily saying we should persuade them. Some people are trying to do that, like Maurice Mitchell who I linked to above, and that's admirable. But there's always the chance that the loudest and most orthodox will never listen. 

But I do think that there are cultural structures and norms that incentivize the behavior, or are conducive to bringing about panicked mindsets. For instance, the recent shift to conflating insult with violence isn't just incorrect, and it isn't merely silly. The embrace of such a framing narrative will almost inevitably lead to panicked individuals moved to fight against the threats that are all around them.

At the very least, I would like to be able to talk about this stuff. About what's problematic, what's overblown, what has maybe good aspects as well as downsides. I'm still flabbergasted that it's so damn hard to have this type of discussion.

6 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Now, sometimes that is frustrating because those identities should be malleable. Other times - like when you tell trans people that they should be fine with being dead named and given a third gender they don't want - that is not particularly reasonable. In either case you're likely not going to have success yelling at them about how they should be less orthodox about their identity.

Ah see, and I thought you were trying to behave like an adult rather than a troll. Sorry, as ever, your summaries of what I say are hastily scribbled cartoons left out in the rain. Very imaginative, but why not use that brain power for something more serious and constructive?

I did say, or at least imply, that people need to consider working with people who hold beliefs that they may find objectionable and even bigoted to some extent. Call out the views you find objectionable if need be, but in a context that still allows for practical work to get done on the points where you do agree. The real question that I was trying to get at was, one that everyone should think seriously about it: what are the absolute red lines that forbid any tolerance vs those that need to be handled differently? What are the orange lines and the yellow lines? It's not like I have the answer, or that my one opinion counts for much there. It's more that people fail to even consider that line of thinking that's a huge problem. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

I like that it took about 10 posts to get here

I'd like to thank the Academy, and also some phenomenal assistance from the resident grumps here.

[Heartofice]

I think the missed point here is that radical lefty types are going to be the very people on this board who will criticise you for pointing this stuff out, so don’t expect a fair hearing. Of course they would never recognise that characterisation.

[Raja]

4 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'd like to thank the Academy, and also some phenomenal assistance from the resident grumps here.

The reaction you get is because of the way you talk about these issues & the way you talk to people, it's that simple.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think the missed point here is that radical lefty types are going to be the very people on this board who will criticise you for pointing this stuff out, so don’t expect a fair hearing. Of course they would never recognise that characterisation.

That's always a possibility, but honestly I don't think the cantankerous responses I get come from people who I would call radical orthodox left--at least based on what I've read. I'm guessing that they just don't like internal critiques outside of private kvetching. Perhaps they find stuff like this to be dangerous, potential fodder for the right wing or something like that. If so, I disagree with that take. The right wing usually doesn't fully lie, they start with a few nuggets of truth and then go into distort mode. It's best to acknowledge uncomfortable truths and frame them correctly rather than allow right wingers to seem reasonable on a point and liberals being the gaslighters. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Raja said:

The reaction you get is because of the way you talk about these issues & the way you talk to people, it's that simple.

I'm open to constructive suggestions!

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

That's always a possibility, but honestly I don't think the cantankerous responses I get come from people who I would call radical orthodox left--at least based on what I've read. I'm guessing that they just don't like internal critiques outside of private kvetching. Perhaps they find stuff like this to be dangerous, potential fodder for the right wing or something like that. If so, I disagree with that take. The right wing usually doesn't fully lie, they start with a few nuggets of truth and then go into distort mode. It's best to acknowledge uncomfortable truths and frame them correctly rather than allow right wingers to seem reasonable on a point and liberals being the gaslighters. 

Just for perspective, I've exchanged much more vitriolic, aggressive, and ad hominem words with Kal, DMC, TY, Week , etc.  I'm not advocating or excusing bombastic language (even when it's correct) but a thick skin and a charitable interpretation of others words can be a charming combination in discussions like this.  There's an art to being an asshole.  

 More to your point about people acting as if discomfort is actual violence, well that's a problem where the complaining about it is louder and more prevalent than the practice.  It also might be helpful to think of stuff like that as a spectrum - there IS a point at which language and speech blurs into violence or at least inciting violence.  People are going to have different ideas of where that line lies.  

 I'm not trying to "gaslight" you by claiming you can't find people making hyperbolic arguments.  Of ourse they're out there.  But in lieu of an attractive alternative method of communicating they are unlikely to change simply by being ostracized or berrated or policed for tone.  Provide an alternative method of criticism or speaking or tackling issues that doesn't turn their stomachs and maybe you can persuade them.  

 

 

Edited May 24 by Larry of the Lake

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Just for perspective, I've exchanged much more vitriolic, aggressive, and ad hominem words with Kal, DMC, TY, Week , etc.  I'm not advocating or excusing bombastic language (even when it's correct) but a thick skin and a charitable interpretation of others words can be a charming combination in discussions like this.  There's an art to being an asshole.  

Point taken, but I'm waiting for more of the art to come, I guess. As I said, dismissive criticism is the easiest thing to dish out. At least be funny about it.

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

More to your point about people acting as if discomfort is actual violence, well that's a problem where the complaining about it is louder and more prevalent than the practice.  It also might be helpful to think of stuff like that as a spectrum - there IS a point at which language and speech blurs into violence or at least inciting violence.  People are going to have different ideas of where that line lies.  

True enough. But I don't think it's too controversial to say that the lines of tolerance dramatically shifting starting around 2012 or 13. Obviously driven in large part by new social media algorithms, but a big part of what those algorithms did was elevate and amplify the loudest, most combative perspectives, so that they essentially frame the issues at hand. There's other stuff going on, but beyond the basic "people can disagree," I think it's healthy to actually discuss what's problematic and what seems acceptable amongst ourselves.

8 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I'm not trying to "gaslight" you by claiming you can't find people making hyperbolic arguments.  Of ourse they're out there.  But in lieu of an attractive alternative method of communicating they are unlikely to change simply by being ostracized or berrated or policed for tone.  Provide an alternative method of criticism or speaking or tackling issues that doesn't turn their stomachs and maybe you can persuade them.  

I wasn't saying you were gaslighting me. I was trying to say that people hearing stuff like "Woke isn't actually a real problem; it's just right wing propaganda" feels like gaslighting, because whatever term you use to call it, those people are objectively out there and quite easy to spot. Now, saying, "Sure, we're here and so what" is a very different kind of pushback, because at least it acknowledges what people like me are trying to describe actually exists. I can also accept that maybe the terms that I'm using are not perfect, but if the reaction by so-called artists of assholery is simply to reject the language or the very premise of a complaint, without trying to get at the heart of what people are observing and trying earnestly to comment on, it feels like gaslighting. And it will also feel like gaslighting to more regular people in the world who see this craziness and happen to label it Woke because at very least it needs a label, and are told in Vox think pieces that there's really no there there.

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think the missed point here is that radical lefty types are going to be the very people on this board who will criticise you for pointing this stuff out, so don’t expect a fair hearing. Of course they would never recognise that characterisation.

I dunno, sounds like you need to define what you mean by radical lefty types first. Probably should define hearing too

[sologdin]

trying to call out specific actions or factions on the left that I find illiberal,

good thread.  it's likely correct to focus on conduct, over something nebulous like character. faction is a bit different, and has a bit of a rightwing pedigree. it might be difficult, if one is rigorous, to identify a purported group with the offending conduct of one of its alleged members.  

this thread needs better pejoratives than assholes. it might skip old soviet nomenclature (left and right species of opportunist, revisionist, and so on), as well as disfavored national terms such as philistine, byzantine, &c. i prefer to start with a term describing the objective effect of the doctrine underlying the conduct subject to critique, prefix it with a class signifier, and then qualify it further with an ersatz psychological term--lumpenized antisocial nihilism is fairly standard. am not sure however what tripartite designation fits here, mostly because the object is not obvious. 

defining the object of critique is accordingly necessary, and that object can only be identified by setting up a standard against which it might be measured unceasingly and perhaps thereunder found wanting.  the standard can't be merely aesthetic--so finding someone 'annoying' will be best kept to oneself, lest one be revealed conclusively as an agent provocateur or too delicate to partake of the revolution.  

measuring conduct against a goal-oriented standard ('counter-productive') is prima facie plausible, but then it falls into russell jacoby's trap about making a fetish of success.  we know from badiou's communist hypothesis that 'failure is nothing more than the history of the proof of the hypothesis,' or so.  sometimes therefore counter-productive may be worthwhile, and we should expect quite a bit of failure before getting to the end of history.

'problematic' sounds like a reasonable metric, though its import may be limited to doctrinal disputes.  'illiberal' is an accusation that conduct adopts rightwing methods and modes. after a certain point, however, the left is contra liberalism, if construed broadly as including capitalism.  we might distinguish between progressive and retrogressive anti-capitalism, and i suppose that's marcuse's argument in repressive tolerance regarding certain forms of conduct. but then where does one draw the line? it would help to know what exactly is considered objectionable here.  if it's merely that some theorists seem fanatical, one might forgive me for thinking that objection appears plausible only in the eye of the beholder.  a principle of charitable interpretation will compel us by contrast to grant good faith intention to parties opponent and thus assume a basic rationality in their thinking; this means banishing accusations of fanaticism, insanity, and the like.