I mean… it really doesn’t take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It’s kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they’re awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn’t leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon’s razor applies.
No it doesn’t. Why would anyone still put any stock in that bullshit after witnessing the pure malice that has infected every aspect of American society?
Hanlon’s razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it’s completely dead.
Hanlon’s razor always applies. If you always assume that everything bad that happens is intentionally malicious, with no acceptance of human weaknesses and the potential for mistakes, then you are part of the extremism problem. You are part of the “everyone who does something that I don’t like must be evil” group.
Hanlon’s razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it’s completely dead.
If you actually believe this, I’m afraid you’re on the wrong side of the razor.
We don’t need more extremist rhetoric. We don’t need more division. We don’t need to perpetuate the “us vs. them” mentality.
Maybe. It’s real hard for me not to notice the pattern recognition of “Kamala Harris supports genocide!” “AOC supports genocide!” “Bernie supports genocide!”, basically literally any person in American politics who’s trying to do some kind of leftist thing with any level of popularity, there’s some kind of bizarre moon logic whereby they must support genocide and we’ve got to start screaming it at them and never support them again.
I will agree with you that some stupid features of the left tend to provide some nice dry powder for this kind of thing but I don’t remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse. Like circa 2000, there was a super vigorous protest movement, but it was aimed at shadowy neoliberal quasi-governments, fascist police, war machines… you know, the enemy. No one was out screaming at Al Gore for destroying the climate and throwing red paint at his offices.
here is a solution, make it clear you don’t support a genocide ! how is that hard is beyond me. If you are okay with “war crimes” and “using food as a weapon” and “apartheid state” and “illegal occupation” then how people should “trust you”.
This like saying “I am okay with giving Hitler weapon to defend German while he is committing a genocide” or “I am okay with giving apartheid South Africa weapons to protect white people while discriminating against black”
If your morality change based on who is affected do not breach morality.
I mean… it really doesn’t take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It’s kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they’re awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn’t leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon’s razor applies.
No it doesn’t. Why would anyone still put any stock in that bullshit after witnessing the pure malice that has infected every aspect of American society?
Hanlon’s razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it’s completely dead.
Hanlon’s razor always applies. If you always assume that everything bad that happens is intentionally malicious, with no acceptance of human weaknesses and the potential for mistakes, then you are part of the extremism problem. You are part of the “everyone who does something that I don’t like must be evil” group.
If you actually believe this, I’m afraid you’re on the wrong side of the razor.
We don’t need more extremist rhetoric. We don’t need more division. We don’t need to perpetuate the “us vs. them” mentality.
If you are othering, you are wrong.
Yes, even with Republicans.
We take away the power of divisive, destructive autocrats by finding or making common cause.
Maybe. It’s real hard for me not to notice the pattern recognition of “Kamala Harris supports genocide!” “AOC supports genocide!” “Bernie supports genocide!”, basically literally any person in American politics who’s trying to do some kind of leftist thing with any level of popularity, there’s some kind of bizarre moon logic whereby they must support genocide and we’ve got to start screaming it at them and never support them again.
I will agree with you that some stupid features of the left tend to provide some nice dry powder for this kind of thing but I don’t remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse. Like circa 2000, there was a super vigorous protest movement, but it was aimed at shadowy neoliberal quasi-governments, fascist police, war machines… you know, the enemy. No one was out screaming at Al Gore for destroying the climate and throwing red paint at his offices.
here is a solution, make it clear you don’t support a genocide ! how is that hard is beyond me. If you are okay with “war crimes” and “using food as a weapon” and “apartheid state” and “illegal occupation” then how people should “trust you”.
This like saying “I am okay with giving Hitler weapon to defend German while he is committing a genocide” or “I am okay with giving apartheid South Africa weapons to protect white people while discriminating against black”
If your morality change based on who is affected do not breach morality.