källarkattI'm arguing with someone about societal change 101 and I really don't get this whole "You shouldn't be mean to oppressors, change will come by itself eventually" because honestly when has that ever been the case? WWII wasn't won by the allies sending a nice but firm letter to Hitler, LGBTQ+ didn't really kick of until the Stonewall riots, Black people weren't taking seriously in the U.S until people like Malcom X and Martin Luther King stood up for themselves and pushed for change
Prof. Monophylos Fortikos@kellarkatt I believe that one of the most insidious and damaging problems that we face as Americans is a very strong national myth, taught to us in manifold forms from childhood, that all of our serious problems have already been solved. Our grade-school history books are full of repetitions of this myth: a social problem once existed, great people rose up to solve it for us, laws were passed, and now we are merely coasting downward from a victory already won.
@kellarkatt I believe this is partly why so many Americans refuse to acknowledge systemic racism and cringe to see any direct interaction with racists. They were taught that Dr. King and Obama's election solved racism, yet here are all these leftists decrying a problem that ostensibly no longer exists. No wonder they seem to think that leftists are somehow _creating_ this problem.
Digitalpotato@Monophylos @kellarkatt What also doesn't help is that when leftists point it out, they get either shouted down because "others have it worse" or people start thinking that they're crybabies because they're talking about what goes on in first-world countries.
@Digitalpotato @kellarkatt Very true. How often are we berated for focusing on social problems in our own neighbourhoods, rather than wringing our hands about the plight of the oppressed in Syria or Iran? (About which suffering these disingenuous critics also care nothing, except as a rhetorical club or as an excuse to start a war.)
@Monophylos @kellarkatt And how often are we being told about that from THE LEFT as well? The left is at constant civil war.
@Digitalpotato @Monophylos God yeah, the stuff from the left is so bittersweet tho (imo) because it at least means we are trying to examine ourselves but more often than not it leads us to discarding anything that isn't absolutely perfect and the dream of a unified left falls apart once again
@kellarkatt @Digitalpotato I rather wonder if a truly unified left is even possible. To me, being a leftist means (among other things) acceptance of the fundamental variety and mutability of human experience. We have ideals, but we do not worship AN ideal. Rightists view "unity" as a Procrustean bed upon which they wish to force all of humanity, stretching or amputating whatever needs to fit. The left can never do that, so true unity among leftists will always be elusive.
josef@Monophylos @Digitalpotato @kellarkatt there's definitely also this kinda "wokefetishism" where people love to call out others for supporting things (or people) that *SEEM* good, but upon close inspection (i.e. 500 pages of reading) turn out to be Actually Bad, and i think people often stay away from leftist communities because they just don't have the energy to ensure all their opinions are sufficiently well-researched
@Monophylos @Digitalpotato @kellarkatt the right is comparatively easy to understand, and therefore, easier to get involved in as a community, probably
@jk @Monophylos @Digitalpotato where as the right often gloss over huge issues with their party/candidate because they "believe in the underlying message"
take the shit people did/still do with bernie sanders, sure he's not perfect but people were basically "he's as bad as trump ok"
@kellarkatt @jk @Digitalpotato It has been said that Democrats need to fall in love with their candidate, whereas Republicans only need to fall in line. The example of Trump seems to have proven the rule: once he was nominated, scarcely a single Republican public figure raised a voice again him even when he looked as though he were doomed. They did everything possible, without legal or ethical compunction, to insure his election.
@kellarkatt @jk @Digitalpotato The Republicans function as a political party, as the Democrats do not, in uniting behind their standard-bearers, enforcing loyalty among all their operatives, and exploiting their control even of minor offices to the utmost, with a cynical disregard for any other principle than "might makes right". Is that really a model to emulate?
esselfortium@Monophylos @jk @Digitalpotato @kellarkatt well, certainly not to that extreme degree, but i think the left could make a lot of gains if they abided more by "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" instead of always looking for reasons to condemn each other, as so many of us seem ever-willing to do
@esselfortium @Monophylos @jk @Digitalpotato Yes this is kinda my view as well, introspection is good but if minor differences devolve into vicious infighting thing aren't going to go anywere.
As a non-American the way your politcal systems are run seems so incredibly dumb haha
Ours isn't great but here parties get seats in goverment based on votes so you have more diverse opinions even though one is in majority, in my opinion a system like this shows potential and should probably be refined
@jk @Digitalpotato @Monophylos @esselfortium Like it's probably only under a system similar to this we could have something close to a unified left, the parties can co-operate on the stuff they agree on and push their own policies at the same time.
As I said it has problems, you can end up with stalemates were nothing happens for like 4 years like we've had now. But imo that's preferable to one where a single party gets "too much power" and you end up with a fascist leading it
@kellarkatt @jk @Digitalpotato @Monophylos the US system is this screwy because a lot of the rules were written expressly to make it difficult/impossible for third parties to succeed or even to get on the ballot. it really blows.
@esselfortium @kellarkatt @jk @Monophylos And because they were written by people who had an 18th century understanding of politics. They did not anticipate that we would eventually have telegrams or automobiles. Or that there would actually BE political parties.
@Digitalpotato @jk @Monophylos @kellarkatt there's that too, but i was also reading last week (sorry, don't have a link) about how the major parties pushed for new difficult-to-meet requirements to crush third parties with, around the time labor parties started to gain traction. requiring tons of signatures to get on the ballot, etc.