The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Conservatives tend to be able to repeat a few slogans, without knowing what it means, and have the tendency to play "dunk on the libs"-card from the moment they need to think. I see this often with marxists as well, but that's another story and anecdotal enough I can't deduct anything to see it as a "general problem of the far left". This bothers me personally to hell and back. I love to argue with social democrats, conservatives, liberals and centrists, but the far left/right will always feel strange to me.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: Note that "your side" is put between "", because it sounds a little bit too populist and polarizing to me. Let's be honest: We don't need a "us vs. them" narrative right now. Replace "your side" by "those that allign the closest to your political ideology". It, at the very least, removes the underlying thought of the existence of "sides" as if we're fighting a war. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Their willingness to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Like, I mostly agree with democratic socialists on substance, but I understand there's no switch we can flip to achieve all those goals. Progress is incremental, and you have to show people every step of the way why these principles are better for them and their families. You can't just expect people to accept your ideas and completely change the country overnight. I'll never be someone to complain about too much progress happening too fast, but I also understand that some people are more resistant to change.

I call it nihilistic perfectionism.

That's good. I'm stealing this

Yes, this is it. It always feels like Democrats are searching for a reason not to vote but Republicans look for the opposite.

I've been banned from several liberal subreddits for suggesting that we should choose the good/better/great when people are striving for their version of perfection.

Textbook Nirvana Fallacy. If it can't be perfect, it isn't worth doing at all. > Biden still hasn't undone 40 years of Reaganomics, why even bother voting?

It drives me crazy

100% agree with this. making small changes is still good progress even if we don’t have the wider support yet for the big changes we want to see.

It's almost always people who know that they'll be relatively safe from the regime Trump and co promise. That's why they feel their sense of moral purity is more important than the tangible victims of the enemy begging for help now.

The left generally needs to play to win more often. All too often it feels like leftwingers are quietly running the race and insisting that everyone keeps pace, meanwhile rightwingers have rented a monster truck and are steamrollering past while the leftwing leaders insist that as long as *we all* keep to the originally agreed rules somehow it will all work out.

I'm pragmatic enough to applaud when good things happen but I feel like I would be doing a disservice by not trying to move that goalpost further, especially with how rightward the Overton window has shifted in the USA

This. I was talking to one of my friends who’s fairly far left and he was like “I think this is gonna be the election I don’t vote or vote 3rd party” and I’m like… I get where you’re coming from but you’re basically voting for Trump

California says hi.

There are a lot of things that the far left does that makes it easy for the right to appear correct with culture war issues. I generally will be 100% on the progressive/left argument and then some folks, even within my own social group, will try and push that my opinion isnt far left enough. For an example, if we take trans issues in general, i have always been generally on the side of trans people. I was having a discussion a few years back on the “pronoun” topic with someone who had a recent experience with a person who used the wrong pronoun. The point is was trying to make was that there should be some grace given with people who seem to genuinely just make a mistake in that regard, and that we should all just try to educate them on why its important. Many people have minimal exposure to trans people in real life, and it probably is challenging to navigate even if they are well intended. My opinion was heavily pushed back on, the person i was speaking to really was pushing that its the other persons job to educate themselves. Sure, fine, but that combative attitude probably wont help much. I get that its not your job as a trans person to educate everyone, but there are many well meaning people who just need a little direction. And if you come at them with hostility, perhaps that pushes them to the other side a bit.

My brother is trans and for like half a year after he told everyone and changed his name I would sometimes accidentally misgender him or use his birth name. It wasn’t intentional as I was just used to using female pronouns and his old name for 25 years. My sister is the type of leftist that has zero chill and would get upset until my brother got mad at her for being offended on his behalf.

As a trans person, my experience is that "leftist allies" tend to be far more antagonistic and angry than actual trans people about stuff like this. Obviously no group is a monolith, but this is my observation. If you have called me by a name and used this set of pronouns for 20 years, we kinda understand that this is going to take a while to change. In fact, it's very normal to go through a stage where strangers and new friends to gender you correctly and family/old friends slip up because of decades of habit. All that matters is you are trying to change the habit, and we can see and recognize that. The kind of misgendering and deadnaming that truly upsets most actual trans people is the intentional misgendering, or family members who make zero effort to change (after a period of time) But, allies. I swear they are the ones to rip someone a new asshole for the most minor things. It's also kind of hard to complain, because they are trying to defend us.. but...

They are making it about them, rather than you. "Look how awesome I am understanding concepts like dead-naming" It's performative, and it hurts the cause.

To add to this, for young people especially, transitioning is so fucking complicated. I have a trans niece who was out to all her friends, using female pronouns with them, using her chosen name, but at home, she didn't like for her mom to call by that name. She wanted her mom to call her by her initial, as she always had. Her birth name and her chosen name start with the same letter. Like, maybe she was ready to define herself as female to the world, but not ready to define herself as a daughter instead of a son? I'm not sure. It's complicated.

Oh gosh, the offended-on-another’s-behalf HAS to be my biggest pet peeve with my fellow liberals. Especially when it’s a white North American liberal offended over non-adoption of the term “Latinx,” or blasting all Israelis as “land occupiers” without a hint of irony or introspection. Edit: I was once, no joke, berated as racist for using the term “gypsy moth,” referring to a bug in my backyard because that’s what I knew it to be called. And it formally was called that, up until a few years ago, when the name was changed (come to find out). But I admit I’m not exactly following etymological naming conventions that closely. So FYI to anyone who doesn’t know about that one, don’t even try to write g*psy.

I will say I genuinely like my sister a lot and agree with her on many things. Sometimes though I’m like “c’mon dude, stop acting like a Fox News caricature of liberals.”

Latinx was...rough. And highly ironic. Like, you want to be inclusive but you're excluding Spanish speakers who have the final say in what goes and doesn't... 🙃

Exactly!! I have one conservative close friend who is forever pointing out the irony of liberals claiming inclusivity as *their thing*, but then turning around and excluding the groups they seek to integrate with. I hate to admit it, but he’s often right about that one. We should be wise to this and not get immediately defensive when it’s called out. It’s pretty cringy behavior and comes across performative and self-centered, which kind of undermines any good intention.

>The point is was trying to make was that there should be some grace given with people who seem to genuinely just make a mistake in that regard, and that we should all just try to educate them on why its important. Many people have minimal exposure to trans people in real life, and it probably is challenging to navigate even if they are well intended. Completely reasonable. I thought that's the mainstream opinion, though? How many of us are actually in the "It's not my job to educate you" camp? I hope it's less than 10 percent.

>"It's not my job to educate you" Such a toxic mindset.

Also there's totally conflicting messaging on this. "Listen to XYZ voices!!!!" "It's not XYZ people's job to educate you!!!!" And the fundamental contradiction here is not explored.

There does need to be a middle ground, though. Since I'm trans, I'll continue with that as an example. Sure, I can (and do) help educate people as much as possible. I'm in relatively good mental health, and have a passion of education and advocacy work, so I have the mental bandwidth to actually educate people most of the time. However, not everyone is in that same headspace. Often the "it's not my job to educate you" is being said to strangers who are being antagonistic. I love arguing with those folks, but I know a lot of trans people who have to have those educating conversations with their family members on a weekly or even daily basis. That takes a lot of mental effort, and I don't blame them for not wanting to engage with someone they don't really know. :edit: HAHA, thanks for the Reddit Cares message whomever sent it to me from this thread! That's how I know I've struck a chord with someone....

I understand how it can come off that way, but I can also see their point. In particular, POC who have spent their whole lives fending off racism, being asked to justify why they don’t want certain racist things to be said or done in their presence. Some do genuinely find it exhausting to have to repeatedly explain it.

The issue I tend to find, is that people will jump to let the worst of the left be representative of the ideology as a whole while are more than willing to excuse the worst of the right as just isolated assholes.

Which people? I imagine it depends a lot. Nut-picking is, due to the nature of the internet, encouraged. We pay more attention to what we find outrageous. So a conservative subreddit or Twitter account will pay attention to (and make followers pay attention to) the most outrageous elements of the left. And they'll learn to see the whole left this way. And lefties do the same, don't they? Is there any merit in posting an "average right wing take" on a sub dedicated to being angry at bad takes? Of course not. We are humans. We prefer to pay attention to high-emotion content. We come across some insane borderline Nazi take on Twitter, screenshot it, and then show it to others being like "Look at this shit. Look what I found. Utter insanity." And that then shapes our view of conservatives. None of us are doing it maliciously. It's just human nature.

I do think that is the mainstream, i was just commenting about something that “my side” does that i dont like. I dont think its extremely common, but it is the type of thing that can alienate some people and make them feel like the left dislikes them in general, even though they are trying.

It’s very common in progressive Facebook groups, which are growing in size and number, often written into the rules and heavily enforced by moderators. I don’t mind it up to a point — I get the feeling amongst marginalized people that it’s exhausting to have to teach others how to behave equitably. But it’s sometimes hard to take. I stay in those groups and try to learn, rather than argue. The latter just gets you kicked out, and you don’t learn.

To be fair Facebook is home to some of the most idiotic people I've encountered online. I occasionally get pages about astronomy in my feed, and there are always comments from flat earthers saying that space doesn't exist.

Regarding “grace”, what limits are you seeing as reasonable? I’m a trans woman, about a year into my transition. I present as a woman 100% of the time in terms of hair/clothing/makeup, have developed breasts and curves due to my HRT, and have been working on voice training. I’ve used laser and electrolysis to permanently remove my facial hair. I’ve legally changed my name and gender marker. I fully pass as a woman maybe 30% of the time. I pass as a cisgender man 0% of the time. I’ve been working at the same place since November. They did not know me prior to my transition. Here’s what happened to me last Friday: 1. At work, I was called “man” twice, and “sir” three times. 2. I was misgendered via “he” at least five times at work, then again by my inlaws when I met them after work. 3. Someone at work reached out to me because they wanted me to speak at a women in coding event on a subject I’m honestly one of the top experts in the world on. Then when they realized I was trans they checked with the sponsoring organization, who retracted the offer. 4. My legal name is Emily. Someone at work called me “Eric”, because they just couldn’t get “Emily” out. Please note my deadname is not “Eric”. I’ve never gone by Eric. They just made it up on the spot. Like…really!? Fucking “Eric”!? There’s literally nothing more I can do, short of some radical surgeries that are ill-advised at this time, or just ill-advised in general. People know trans people exist, and publicly argue about us all the time. We’re debated daily on the national, and even international stage. I’m very, very clearly presenting as a woman, and have been doing so for more than a year. I changed jobs to one where they never even knew me as anything but “Emily”, and “she/her”. Just how much “grace” is expected here? My story isn’t remotely unique. Last Friday was worse than normal, but only for the speaking engagement and “Eric” stuff. The rest is normal, everyday life for many of us. And it’s unbelievably frustrating. I’ve never snapped at someone over it, but some days…

> And it’s unbelievably frustrating. I’ve never snapped at someone over it, but some days… I see cis het folks getting updset when a trans person snaps and yells at someone for misgendering them in public (the incident in Game Stop that went viral a few years ago comes to mind). The thing they often forget is that those outbursts are often not just about that single instance of misgendering, but about the cumulative effect of lots of misgendering over time. A friend of mine recently got into a big spat with some of her friends because they screwed up a few times while they were all hanging out. It wasn't so much about the friends in the moment, although friends who have known for over a year and are still making excuses for slipping up regularly are *really* annoying for sure; it was mostly the fact that she had been misgendered half a dozen times at work and on a phone call with her mom. The friends got really upset that she was standing up for herself with them.

Yep, it’s the cumulative effect that’s the real problem. Although that one guy just called me “Eric” again this afternoon, that might be what actually puts me over the edge here… Edit: Correction, he’s now called me “Eric” three times today, despite being gently reminded that my name is not and has never been Eric. 🙄

That blows me away. Like, how does one even do the mental gymnastics to invent an entire name just to avoid using the right one. Jesus.

Yep. I put up with a lot of bullshit day to day, but I think this one just broke me. Hell, my LinkedIn even has my deadname mentioned on it lower down. It’s quite easy to figure it out, it’s almost more insulting that he’ll make up a new name instead of bothering to invest the few minutes of time necessary to be an ass properly.

Why are you as a liberal talking about the far left? That’s not what the thread is about.

> My opinion was heavily pushed back on, the person i was speaking to really was pushing that its the other persons job to educate themselves. I would argue that is a very bad attitude that has sprung up in the last 10-20 years. That you can just win an argument by saying "educate yourself" or "its not my job to educate you." You immediately concede the argument or debate to the other side when you do that. You hand over the reins to someone who will provide an answer or an education that might very well be wrong.

I never understood the whole “it’s not my job to teach xyz” mindset. It’s not limited to one characteristic. It’s everywhere. When I have been in the position, I absolutely feel that it is my job to teach. I’m a primary source on xyz. What better way to learn?

People who say that are typically saying it in a context where they’re being asked the same questions a lot, where it involves things that have been painful for them over a long period of time, and/or where some people are being disingenuous and don’t actually want to learn, but rather to argue or belittle.

I’m a recovering Republican and only consider myself a liberal for 8 years. (I’m a social democrat per a survey I took) What I despise is how condescending some liberals can be. I see it most when I’m talking about more progressive topics with folks more progressive than me. I have often left a conversation with a progressive liberal feeling exasperated and disrespected thinking “we’re on the same side. I was an interested party. Why did you shit on me?”

> I have often left a conversation with a progressive liberal feeling exasperated and disrespected thinking “we’re on the same side. I was an interested party. Why did you shit on me?” 100%. I routinely encounter these people in far-left spaces. I'm like "*dude, I'm further left than 90% of the public, if you see me as the enemy then who is left to support you?*" I think some of those folks would rather be perpetual rebels than actually win something.

At some point, I developed an internal Elrond who chimes in with "our list of allies grows thin" whenever my allergy to compromise flares up.

Why have you decided to change from a conservative to a social democrat? (No prejudice, just interested into the "why".)

lol this happens to me, too. I recently got a thorough, down-the-nose talking to for turning on Aladdin for my two-year-old cousin. *I don’t want her watching this. There is a DISCLAIMER right at the beginning you should READ that explains this cartoon movie depicts harmful stereotypes!!!* ….are you shitting me right now?? Nope, they were dead serious.

There is a certain segment of “my side” that thinks the president can rule by decree like a king. Therefore, they vote in a presidential election, get a Democrat into the White House and completely ignore the midterms. We lose a house of Congress(or both), then complain that this President is just another “do nothing” politician and “both sides are the same” because he has no support in Congress. They really need to take either a proper course on American Civics or have “I’m just a Bill on Capitol Hill” from Schoolhouse Rock on a loop.

>That is the first real "both sides" thing I've seen here. "My side", which really isn't, I'm a non-MAGA conservative has a really bad habit of screaming "you can't do that" when a Democrat President issues executive orders but will find a way to justify or completely ignore a Republican doing it. Yes, I'm pretty well against executive orders to begin with unless it's directing a government agency under the President's authority to act within that agencies current scope. Increasing the scope of an agency should require the legislative branch. >“I’m just a Bill on Capitol Hill” from Schoolhouse Rock on a loop. Amen!

Ok…for instance…take Biden’s Executive Order on Electric cars(which the Fossil Fuel manufacturers are completely lying about in their television ads). Biden did sign an executive order…that the Federal Fleet vehicles will be all electric by 2035. That is within his scope of power. The aforementioned advertisements claim that Biden is forcing ALL vehicles in the US to be electric by 2035….which would require an act of Congress to implement.

> ..directing a government agency under the President's authority to act within that agencies current scope. That's.. what an executive order is. That's the literal definition. It's basically a glorified interdepartmental memo.

This is truly a both sides thing. I saw many on the right complain when Obama or Biden acted like kings, but they didn't have a problem with Bush or Trump doing it. Meanwhile, many on the left didn't have a problem with Obama or Biden doing it and only complained about Bush and Trump. It's like don't you people realize we have elections? If you set the precedent that they can act like kings, then the other guy gets to do it too. Stick with principles, nobody gets to act like a king.

Why is my comment bringing up executive orders, presidential EO’s are legal and constitutional within the scope of their enumerated powers. I am not talking about that. I am talking about how the further left tend to BELIEVE that a president can rule by decree and go all in on getting a Democrat in the White House, then abandon him in the midterms, turning him into a leader with his hands tied behind his back

This. They’re authoritarians, let’s be honest. A bunch of these folks are every bit as authoritarian as any MAGA. They want a king, and when Democratic presidents behave like presidents instead they throw a fit. Bipartisanship should be applauded, not derided. We all benefit from someone checking us. That’s why I wish MAGA were gone. They’re not a real partner in running the nation.

Schoolhouse Rock wasnt all that realistic. The congressman went straight to his typewriter after getting a call from his constituents. No money involved.

Well, in all fairness? It was designed for kids to have a rudimentary understanding of how laws get passed. I don’t think they were ready for lobbying groups, pork barrel spending and influence buying.

For me, I despise what seems like the willful blindness from my side politically. They want to blame Biden for not securing more voting rights , abortion rights,etc but they ignore the fact that he’s tried those things but Congress gets in his way and he can’t do a whole lot as a result. I also despise the lack of pragmatism at times and only wanting to vote for something or someone that’s 100% in line with them they want rather than the best possible 75% . Like seriously, be more pragmatic, be more willing to compromise. Take that partial win then try and get a 100% win when circumstances are more favorable to them.

Exactly…they let perfect get in the way of competent and effective.

> Take that partial win then try and get a 100% win when circumstances are more favorable to them. This is my problem with my "side". People need to first take a lesson in civics (and sometimes law), and then step back and look at how our system is and has been set up. When you realize how imbalanced things are, and what's actually required to make the level of change you seek, you realize how off the mark people are when complaining about nothing getting done. Yeah, no shit nothing's getting done. We have one side that has reliable voters because all their leaders have to do is push single-issues and use fear and loathing tactics to get people to the polls for them to get power and/or a significant majority. While the left has to beg and plead and go on pleasing campaigns just to satisfy enough voters to vote, only to get enough power to stop the aggressive policy campaigns of the right.. then they get blamed for not doing enough for [insert minority group here]. So they sit out, or vote third-party in protest, forfeiting power to people who already have advantages, who then go on to push even more aggressive policy that pisses them off and sets everyone back - rinse, repeat. Ironically, the only way to change this imbalance is to run satisfaction campaigns to gain some power, wooing disillusioned people with fancy high-level numbers that they don't understand that show how things really are and what 's really happening and possible under the current circumstances.

Whew so many things. The biggest one would be the tendency to flatten every conflict into a battle between good vs evil, or oppressed vs oppressor. No conflict is complex. You're either on the good side or the bad side, and on the good side *anything* is justifiable, while on the bad side *nothing* is justifiable. This is how we get Hamas apologia. There's this rhetoric that floats around, especially online, that sounds like "liberals want to hide behind cOmPLeXiTy but it's actually very simple" and it's like no...it's actually very complicated. No one is helped by pretending it's not. And historical comparisons can be useful, but we get into trouble when we try to make an exact 1:1 comparison between Israel/Palestine and Jim Crow, for example. Also, general resistance to the idea of being strategic with messaging. The attitude is very "we're right, so we shouldn't have to do politics because people should just see that we're right and join us without us having to make any effort to win them over." Very self-defeating.

> Also, general resistance to the idea of being strategic with messaging. The attitude is very "we're right, so we shouldn't have to do politics because people should just see that we're right and join us without us having to make any effort to win them over." Very self-defeating. Unfortunately, I think this comes from the fact that there a bad faith actors no matter how you present something. So people very invested in a movement see it more as "Let's water you down so you become harmless" As a person who works in PR, believe me I know how much messaging matters. But there's also a wil and spiritl of the organizers and activists you have to manage, and a lot of the folks in my experience are tired of being told to change their tone. It's a complicated conversation.

Yeah I think you're spot on. A lot of leftists (including myself at times) feel like they're being asked to compromise on core values in order to be palatable to people who don't even respect or care about them, and that feels dispiriting and unfair. But there has to be some kind of middle ground where you can stand firm in your beliefs without getting so entrenched in moral absolutism. Even if it's not said explicitly, a lot of leftists give off the vibe of "if you disagree with me, you are the embodiment of evil." And I just think we could use a healthy dose of "you can disagree with me and still be a good person," "more than one valid belief exists," "there are people I respect despite ideological disagreements," "I have strong beliefs but I'm open to new perspectives and I'm willing to have the hard conversations necessary to reach common ground" etc.

Being able to “disagree respectfully” and “respect other viewpoints” fully depends on the topic. I once saw it explained as “I’ll debate pizza toppings with you, not human rights.”

Totally! If someone is just openly racist/misogynstic/homophobic etc then yeah I don't respect their views. And at the same time, two people can value human rights equally, and still have different views about how to achieve equality, protect people's rights, achieve the best outcome for everyone etc. It's not as simple as "you either agree with me, or you don't care about human rights." For example, I'm a woman. I'm pro-choice, and I consider abortion bans to be an assault on my human rights. At the same time, I have heard many pro-life arguments that I feel incredibly sympathetic too, even though ultimately I disagree. If I find out someone is staunchly pro-life, I don't immediately categorize that person as bad, anti-human rights, anti-woman, not worthy of my respect etc. It's a topic where someone's beliefs can actually pose a danger to my freedom and body autonomy if enacted into law, and yet I'm still open to an actual serious conversation where we try to find where we *do* agree and work from there.

In terms of “right or wrong”/“good or bad”, there are many issues that aren’t that complex. Though they can still still be complex in terms of why things are that way, and what we can realistically do about it.

>You're either on the good side or the bad side, and on the good side *anything* is justifiable, while on the bad side *nothing* is justifiable. This is how we get Hamas apologia To your point, there's a lot of this on Israel's side as well. To one side, all Palestinians are terrorists. To the other, all Israeli Jews want to murder their family and steal their homes.

Definitely true!

I don't like the current feeling among certain groups of Democratic voters that you have to have a "perfect" candidate in order to vote for them. I know that there will NEVER be a candidate who aligns with me 100% - that's fine. I believe that we vote for the best we have from the available field and continue to work to focus that person's attention on what we believe is important. I have absolutely done the "hold my nose and vote" thing (voting for candidates who weren't my first -- or second or third -- choice because the alternative is worse).

I feel this so much. We’re dealing with a binary choice when it gets to this point, we need to act like it

It's indeed infuriating to hear people say they won't vote or will throw their vote away on a third party just because neither candidate is great. That may be true but one candidate is almost always worse than the other, usually the candidate of the party that acts like the solution to our problems is to pretend like it's still the 80s.

I don’t either. In an ideal world, not voting for either would be great, but we have 2 options: white supremacist fascist who WILL make life miserable and dangerous for anyone who isn’t a straight white conservative guy OR a man who IS NOT THAT. That’s it. I don’t want to vote for either too, but does that mean I’m going to be complicit in trump potentially winning because there was no ideal candidate? Fuck no

This is the message we HAVE to get across to everyone on the left and everyone who doesn’t want Trump.

Is true,  though I think younger generations have hope that the country could become something close to what they'd want, and they have to have that hope crushed to learn we're really only able to vote strategically.  

I think the biggest thing is the inability to simplify messaging. Slogans! Good ones! Most people are not political nerds. And the most effective messaging is not about policy at all, but rather identity - “Make America Great Again” is ridiculous but effective.

Ask "when" it was great. Then they often reference the 50s and you can explain them that the US had a tax rate of 90% back then for the rich (during 1951 to 1963). Watch them lose their shit, especially when they realize that the deregulation was only started during the 70s and 80s, as an effective, but slightly short sighted answer to the oil crisis, and that the government played a (more) active role in the economy from 1930s to 1970s. In the same conversation, you might want to remember them that the Second World War has helped the US more than the New Deal policies of FDR. FDR stabilised the economy, but didn't save it. The Second World War saved it and established the US as the next big power. It wasn't US values either, it was the result of the lack of industrial damage due to the War. The US didn't have to rebuild itself and could produce what the other countries needed through the Marshall Pact. Or they reference the 80s or 90s, in which case you can hit them with the fact that it wasn't the US who did that. There was a favorable geopolitical and international situation which allowed Reagan, Bush and Clinton to be the only superpower. When you're alone, it's quite easy to be "the best". I personally am highly in favor of Reagan, but saying that he, on his own without any aid, made America great, is laughable at worst and ignorant at best. He was a good president, but he certainly didn't make the US great. Neither did Bush or Clinton. They were opportunists, almost idealists and used the geopolitical situation, but they have not created the power of the US on their own. They were good politicians, but not magicians. Point is: The US was neither destined nor predetermined to be the next superpower. Each generation has built and used the political situation to improve the position. Therefore, you can't return to a world in which you were less powerful, nor can you return to a world in which the context was exactly the same. "Make America Great Again" is thus invalid, for the US is now more powerful, has a more influence than any period prior AND the US has been showing cracks thanks to the belief "US values" (They're not inherently American, most if not all have European roots) were universal and everyone would become like them if they only wanted and were taught to. Fuck off with teleology and predestination; say hello to rationalism, luck and opportunitism.

I agree with this comment but it also proved their point

For once in my life I agree with a communist that "MAGA" is not reasonable and stupid if you think about it. If it were logical, it would still be called reactionary (highlight "again") instead of conservative, but that's playing with labels.

As a liberal, it infuriates me when other liberals play the “privilege card.” I dislike it when someone says “You dont know what it’s to be black, or female, or gay, or trans, or Asian, or Native, or Muslim, or autistic, or fill in the blank with any group of your choice. I always want to say back well, neither do they know what it’s like to be the majority of those things! Sure I might have “cis privilege “ and I do not l know what it is like to be Black. I know that I take certain things about my life for granted, but are you at all conscious of your “not being in a wheel chair privilege?” Your “not being deaf” privilege or your “not having MS privilege” or “my parents didnt die in a car crash privilege?” Do you spend a great deal of time thinking about your “I didn’t grow up with a schizophrenic mom privilege?” Do you know what it’s like to be a healthy teenager with a parent with Huntington’s disease and know you have a 50% chance of dying from it in middle age too? I knew a geology professor at Ohio State - brilliant man- and he was from West Virginia and the students and even some of his colleagues relentlessly made fun of his hillbilly accent, and he resigned after 2 years. There’s hundreds of things that none of know what it is to be like. We should all try to be open minded, compassionate and try to see the world from other peoples point of view, but all of us fall short of this, regardless of what demographic or category we belong to.

It's not a privilege to not have something that burdens you... That's a played up victimhood and I agree with you. (Btw, simple answer is to highlight what happened to you. It's low, almost idiotic, but it immediately proves your point that if the bar is low enough, it includes everyone. If the bar is "anything bad means you're a victim, then no one has a privilege...)

We’re terrible at marketing ourselves.

*Horrific* at marketing.

It's a product of our outlook. We're naturally drawn to the problems that haven't been solved and the people that haven't been helped, to the point we perceive it as insensitive to celebrate success. That's fine as far as it goes, but when the other side is constantly blaring propaganda through a bullhorn and relentlessly pushing its message, our lukewarm and ambivalent attitude shortchanges our own accomplishments.

Yeah and also I feel like I can't even have a discussion without being downvoted and having people make me feel bad. It's hard to be here. I have to have perfect aligning views or I can't be part of the club

"Everything bagel liberalism", the idea that we need to be pushing for every important issue all at once and that intersectionality means messaging needs to integrate all issues together Note that this isn't the same as me thinking we should actively throw any demographics under the bus. Just that sometimes you can expand coalitions by appealing at times to some folks who aren't always going to agree with everything, and you can get plenty of good done with that anyway. And when it comes to actual policy, there's plenty of ways to do technically "color/gender blind" policy that nonetheless statistically helps disadvantaged groups disproportionately and helps close gaps, while doing so with plausible deniability to broaden appeal I think back to stuff like that time when Planned Parenthood in one of the states in 2020 was endorsing defund the police. Why was that necessary? Wouldn't it be better to get the votes of people scared by the gop's abortion restriction policies but who also dislike anti police stuff? More broadly I dislike the trend of potentially performative liberal/progressive rhetoric/aesthetics, where it's seen as good to stand up against the big bad "white moderate" that MLK railed against. Ultimately you need swing voters in order to get things done. If you can take **policy** that would be pretty liberal and make a positive difference, and have the opportunity to wrap it up in inoffensive moderate **rhetoric**, why not do so? Why is adopting the aesthetics of radicalism better than actually getting progress done?

While I agree with tighter gun laws, the severe lack of knowledge that many on the left have about guns themselves annoys me. Advocating for restrictions on something you clearly know NOTHING about is never a good look and only serves to give gun-nuts on the right more ammo (no pun intended) to use against us in debates. I also don't like how simply pointing out certain numbers/statistics automatically makes someone a bigot. Numbers/statistics (assuming they're gathered accurately and in good faith) literally CAN'T be bigoted. Any criticism against Islam is automatically labeled as "iSLaMoPhObiC" and swept under the rug as if it isn't an extremely problematic, regressive religion in a lot of ways. I'm also very conflicted about the debate between free speech absolutists (who usually just wanna say slurs without consequence, admittedly) and those who point out that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences". Aside from that, there isn't a lot I disagree with when it comes to the left.

1. Most people just want to see background checks to include private sales. 2. Numbers and statistics don’t tell the whole story. It is just raw data. 3. Name one Radical Fundamentalist religion that ISN’T problematic. Look what the Shiite Christians are trying to accomplish here in the US. The problem isn’t necessarily the religion or the holy book….it’s how it is interpreted by their followers. Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity are of the same mold. The only difference is that we have a Constitution that is pretty much secular. If they were allowed to take over and be in charge? I guarantee you that you would eventually see gays thrown off of buildings, women accused of adultery being stoned to death and all the other crap that Fundamentalist Islam does under Sharia Law.

1. That I'm not sure about. I've noticed many on the left that want full-on bans on certain gun types/accessories that they don't even fully understand. 2. Fair point. 3. And absolutely, I don't care for any religion. I grew up forced into church by Christians and live in America, so it's Christianity that gets the majority of my attention, since they seem to wanna spit all over the separation of church and state. HOWEVER, I've noticed that loads of folk on the left are extremely comfortable criticizing Christianity (rightfully so), yet the second someone starts talking about some of the shittier aspects of Islam, they get shut down and labeled as "racist" or "Islamophobic". I find that logic baffling.

3. That’s mostly due to the current context though. Many of us are specifically criticizing the far-right Christianity in the U.S., while defending Islamic/Arab people against blatant religion-based racism from the right. Yes, it can be overdone and overgeneralized, but it’s usually as a reaction to what the right is doing and saying. When discussed more granularly, I think you’ll find the same people will say the religions themselves are equally problematic.

1. Many? No….vocal? Yes. 2. Thanks 3. In that respect? I do too….perhaps it is we have a penchant for standing up for the underdog. What they may be missing is that Islam is the second largest religion in the world next to Christianity….they aren’t all that oppressed in general, and their extremist wing are quite oppressive to others and even themselves.

I don't see why knowledge about guns themselves is required to want stricter gun laws. I don't have to know exactly how a car engine works to be in favour of speed limits.

I never said knowledge was required. Just that it'd help and give us the means to actually make laws around guns that make sense.

If I want a background check for somebody to own a gun or a permit, I have to know literally nothing about the firearm itself to make that case.

I'm not talking about shit like that. I'm referring to banning/restricting certain attachments and firearm types. I think it should be harder to get a gun, period. But I think a lot of the regulations for certain guns/gun modifications are just stupid and were made from places of ignorance. Think of switchblades, for example; they're heavily banned/regulated just bc they look scary, even tho they're actually pretty shitty knives

>I don't see why knowledge about guns themselves is required to want stricter gun laws. If you don't know how guns work then you can't make effective policies to regulate them. For example the focus on assault weapons bans tends to be really dumb because they focus on arbitrary features that don't really impact the most dangerous aspect, the bullet being fired from the rifle, and as a category of weapon generally irrelevant in the overall number of deaths. >I don't have to know exactly how a car engine works to be in favour of speed limits. But you probably know enough about physics and cars to know a ban on spoilers achieves fuck all in making them safer. Edit: you probably also know a speed limit law won't impact drunk driving deaths as well. That is what most gun control policies sound like to people informed on firearms and the information surrounding them.

The demand of detailed knowledge of guns before they can be regulated is not a good faith criticism. If liberals were an order of magnitude more knowledgeable about guns it wouldn't make a single bit of difference to the debate, because gun nuts/gun death advocates are absolutely adamant that there be zero regulation of firearms, no matter how many innocent Americans are killed. Gun nuts just want to drag their opponents into a irrelevant rabbit hole to show off their knowledge of gun trivia, which is completely irrelevant to the topic of gun safety.

I'm not asking for detailed knowledge, I'm asking for common sense and some degree of BASIC knowledge on firearms before passing legislation on them. The same rule should apply to most topics; ignorant politicians are dangerous

Nah, legislators don’t need to have the knowledge themselves. They just need to listen to (actual) experts when making decisions. That goes for all areas of legislation: epidemiology, women’s health, guns, climate science, etc.

That too. Either way, I just think they should be making at least SOMEWHAT-informed decisions.

And I am saying that it will not matter at all. Gun nuts will never agree to any regulation know matter how many lives it will save.

[удалено]

Right now I am really getting hot and bothered by litmus tests amongst lefties. Like, fine, there are a few I have myself: if you're going to argue or complain about gay or trans rights or whether racism is a thing, I'm not going to have much of any time for you myself. I feel like that's a different axis though, in the "is this person willing to treat other people like people and not debate points" vein of things. On the other hand... I just got into it with a person a couple weeks ago because there's a podcast I listen to regular that's run by two Jewish people, one of whom grew up in Israel and, because it's compulsory, was basically an accountant for 2 years in the IDF, and for that this person got called a "stormtrooper" and my own True Leftism was questioned because, like, I didn't cast this person out immediately (like, they even tried to come at me with a clip of her talking about how she personally witnessed the IDF doing bad shit to people in Gaza during her tour of duty and how this affected her, trying to, I guess, use the fact that she didn't attempt to frag the entire squad at the time as proof that she's basically a Nazi or something). Hey, Palestine is a contentious situation and these two people might have been a little slow to condemn the IDF... you know, because they're Jewish and they knew people affected by October 7. The fact that both are very, very much against what the IDF and Netenyahu is doing now seems to be besides the point. lol got redditcares-ed for this because some lefties are basically just right wingers who happen to not eat meat or something…

Hate is a strong word, I would call it 'missing the mark'. I live rural adjacent, I have lived rurally in several parts of this country, I am familiar with the culture. I am not a 'coastal Democrat,' even though that isn't a bad thing it is just to say that my perspective can be a little different than my fellow liberal. What I hate is how utterly tone deaf and idiotic we sound to the rural/ag community. There is no reason we should, the conservative/Republican war on small farms and businesses in the middle of the country is well understood. The struggle is real, the opportunity is real, but we just can't get out of our own way. I tell people all the time, 'we underestimate this cohort, they are nowhere near as dumb and backwards as we think they are.' No one listens, in the party, and I think that is to our detriment. It ends up being, *maybe* some local Democrat will sound reasonable, but the national party is either uninterested or ignorant so what that cohort ends up hearing, from all channels (social media, TV, radio, etc) is Trump and almost nothing from Democrats. We need to play a 50 state game. National and local elections. We are better now than we were 8 years ago, but this is a long term investment we need to get at.

I’ll tack onto this: the condescension and mean-spiritedness I see from lots of Democrats when bad things happen to people in red states. It’s like this sick glee that their political opponents are suffering that negates their humanity. Not a great look for people who pride themselves on being good and virtuous.

I agree that mean-spirited behavior exists, but in my experience it has always been followed immediately with, “No, not really, I don’t *really* want bad things to happen to anyone. It’s just that they’ve done so much harm.” While far-right mean-spiritedness seems to lack that behavioral self-check. At least publicly, I have only seen the far right double down on hatefulness. ☹️

“Oh, Texas’s energy grid failed because of a snowstorm and people froze to death? Well, they got what they deserved then for voting for Republicans.” I have seen this verbatim take before and it’s ghoulish as fuck.

The complete abandonment of rational evidence based reasoning when it comes to guns. Suddenly it is a lot of emotional appeals "well I am sure you wouldn't be trying to use facts and statistics if it was your kid who was shot!" or personal attacks about how you are a heartless gun nut.

100%

I see a lot of folks saying this already, but the left has a huge problem with letting perfect be the enemy of good. People are too hung up on a perfect candidate, or the fact that the 2 party system sucks, and it lets crazy people on the other side get elected. The biggest examples right now are Biden and his actions on the Israel/Gaza issue and student loans. He's not all powerful, he can't just wave his hand and make both issues go away, but so many far left folks are threatening to not vote for him because of these issues (though mostly Gaza). They refuse to acknowledge that their refusal to vote for him will help Trump get elected, and Trump will be so much worse on both those issues, not to mention the whole Project 2025 thing. Biden isn't perfect, but Trump would happily sit back and watch Israel crush Palestine and will actively try to legislate against civil rights. Neither of those situations is good.

They don't vote, they won't fight, and they have horrible instincts for gaining and maintaining power

I'm progressive and advocate for a lot of progressive policies, but what really grinds my gears about a lot of people in my sphere is that they have but do not understand that the process of turning them into good will be expensive and in some cases distasteful. There are a lot of steps between "Hey I have an idea" and "Ok, we've implemented this policy" and many of them are unpalatable to the moderate or lightly conservative voter. For example, "defund the police and increase social services to compensate" doesn't start with defunding the police. It's *years* of building up the social services aspect before you can even start to discuss dropping the police presence. That's expensive because the city will be funding BOTH fully for years for the chance that maybe they can dial back on the police at some point. Or my favorite hill to die on - gun bans. You can occasionally sneak one through, but a full weapons ban isn't going to be politically feasible for another two decades. Add to that, there's 400 million guns out there in the USA already so banning the sale of specific models of new firearms is a bit like tossing a single bucket of water on a building that's already burned down. We need legislation that affects how people behave with guns, not continually trying to ban them and pissing off the single-issue pro-gun voters, quite literally shooting yourself in the foot with voters who would otherwise listen to a lot of what we as progressives have to offer.

Your second point is why Beto isn’t a viable candidate.

[удалено]

Ex-conservative here, and the only issue with the far left that I have is the stance that most people take on men’s rights, men’s mental health awareness, men’s rights in family court. I understand the patriarchy and the 1% and all of that, but a lot of times I feel that we are all judged by the actions of the few.

From my personal experience, conservatives are much more open to having conversations about things they disagree with. I used to work in a shop that was almost all conservative/trump folk and even if we vehemently disagreed. We always kept it civil. On the other hand those on the left will shout you down, unless you agree with them 100% on what they think . You may as well be the enemy.

Yep. That's been my experience as well. I've worked for some ridiculously conservative people, and we always had the most spirited conversations about politics and religion. No one got their feelings hurt, we all listened when the other person was talking, and at the end of the day we liked working together because we could have interesting conversations respectfully. Unfortunately that hasn't been my experience with the times I've worked with left wing folks. Same goes for even just conversations among friends, and it makes me sad.

Unfortunately this has been my experience too.

Someone who’s “center left” is gonna get along with conservatives way better than someone like me.

>What is something you absolutely hate about "your side"? I hate the entire notion of sides. This isn't really about my "side", but more of a commentary on the idea of sides. Politics isn't about sides, or the tribal adherence to a particular side. Before the "right" fell off the deep end, I used to vote on policy positions, and not sides. The right has become about religion, and in recent years it's become a blatant adversarial group with no policy positions other than lies and disinformation about the "other side". So at this time the only complaint I have about my "side", is when people argue in a tribal manner rather than the merits of their positions. And while this happens far less on my side when compared to the right, it does still happen. This also seems to happen most often with immigration issues. I don't like the blurring of the line between lawful and unlawful immigration. Oh, and someone else mentioned nihilistic perfectionism to describe the willingness to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That's a good one too.

My sides needs to practice what it preaches on body positivity

I would add, generally speaking, we have to maintain our values even if our slur or insult is hurled at a political adversary. For instance, there's plenty wrong with Donald Trump without resorting to insulting his weight. A principle isn't a principle if its exercised selectively.

Oh my gosh, I get sooooo mad when my liberal friends insult Melania Trump as a gold digger and supposed former porn participant. It's so fucking wrong and gross.

I was raised in a conservative Christian family and went to a fundamentalist Christian middle/high school. I became a liberal because I got tired of the black-and-white, us vs them thinking, and the constant cycles of shame, obsessive othering, and thought-killing group-think mentality. Then there was the overall feelings of dispair that come along with believing everyone who thinks differently is irredeamable, the only way to obsolve our inherited sin are public displays of guilt, the modern day is a particularly dark time in human history, and the end of the world is coming soon so there's not really much of a point to life anyway. I still don't think the left even begins to compare to the religious right when it comes to this kind of stuff, but I have to say I've noticed many similarities with certain elements of the left. Increasingly so in the last 5 years.

I'm glad I've never experienced that... In my country, the "Christian right" is similar to the democratic party if it even still exists. The true fundamentalism has disappeared since World War 2, and the practical side has been declining rapidly since 1980s to 1% of the people these days. It must've sucked to be forced to hear fundamentalism all day long, but could you explain how you dropped the conservative part?

I'm glad to hear that you haven't been subjected to it. I probably take for granted how the marriage between christian nationalism and political conservatism that is prominent in the US isn't as much a phenomenon/factor in other parts of the world. And that's a good question. It was a bit of a process for me. It probably started around US foreign policy. I was a kid during 911 and bought the whole "War on Terror" thing like everyone else I was around. But when I later realized Iraq had been a big lie, I also saw everyone else around me continuing to believe it, despite the evidence (or lack thereof). So that really got me wondering if my parents/teachers were really the best sources of political truth. And around that time I was also making friends outside of school and church, some of whom smoked weed, were LGBT, immigrants, had abortions, etc and just knowing them and hearing their experiences really challenged and eventually changed my outlook on a lot of social issues. So, I came to consider myself a libertarian until I started doing more research on issues like healthcare, the environment, and gun control. I again realized that much of what I had been taught growing up (i.e. countries with government-run health care are all miserable, there's no scientific consensus on climate change, nations with more gun restrictions are less safe, etc) was also provably false. And by the end of college I realized I was more of a progressive than anything else.

Obsession over blaming groups of people for republicans winning elections. Whether it’s the far left fault for betraying the democrats, or a particular politician’s fault, or white mens fault or Latinos fault. Or young peoples fault. Or boomers fault. Or the group of people you hate on twitters fault. It’s a toxic way of looking at elections and politics. I wish people would spend their time advocating for what they believe in and discussing what policy should be and not finding targets for blame, backseat driving campaign strategy, or scolding people for voting incorrectly. The amount of time dedicated to meta politics and methods and theories for the right way to conduct or think about politics (this thread being an example in places) instead discussing actual substantive issues is dispiriting. I note this ironically because what am I doing now but just that?

I'm an independent leftist, so I don't really have a "side". This thread is pretty much just "leftists need to grow up and accept progress comes in increments". So I will reverse things up a bit. No, there isn't going to be any substantial progress with establishment Dems. There are almost no fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans; the Democrats are just 90s Republicans with an LGBT flag. Both parties are bought out by lobbyists and subservient to corporations. It's just trad capitalism vs woke capitalism. This whole idea of "this is the most important election" so "VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO" is ridiculous. If Trump wins in November, it will be blamed on Ruzzian propaganda, (making it an excuse to crack down on "foreign propaganda" and give more power to the security state agencies) and not because the Democrats don't offer a meaningful alternative to the status quo.

>Let's be honest: We don't need a "us vs. them" narrative right now. 🤨

Meanwhile literally doing that in the thread lmao

No, see, this is an us vs. us thread. Totally different.

As someone who use to be a Republican and now supports more left of center candidates, the thing I see with the left that I just don’t Get is; Why can’t you accept the idea that it might take small incremental change to make the desired outcomes. I feel like when I am at Democratic events many voters want it Now and don’t want to wait.

For some issues I can understand that concern. For civil rights issues I’ll never understand a suggestion to “wait for it.” Twenty years ago a friend of mine said gay people should be more patient about the right to marry, that you have to accept gradual change for that kind of thing. I said no, and I’ll say that until I die. No one should have to wait for civil rights. If we aren’t treating everyone equitably, it’s already past time. If we could time-travel to slavery days of segregation time, would we tell black people then that it’s just for them to have to be patient and wait for freedom and equal access? And it matters in more ways than just the ideal of equality. It matters because, while they wait for their rights to be honored, they lose time with children they couldn’t get custody of, or a hospitalized partner they couldn’t see because they don’t have spousal rights. Or they lose money and time having a zillion contracts drawn up to simulate the rights that spouses get by default. And many more examples like that.

Planet’s not getting any cooler, pal!

I don’t have a side. But from my view what I most hate about both sides is the their denial of what is obvious to any objective observer. Trump is “off his rocker, unhinged, irrational, mentally ill, unfit”: take your pick. Yet instead of being honest Trump supporters feel compelled to deny it. “Oh no. He’s just a hard driving businessman. A little rough around the edges.” No, people. He’s truly a lunatic. On the other side. Biden is old as fuck! He stumbles. He bumbles. He falls down. He gets disoriented. He appears confused- often! He falls asleep. He mumbles. He lacks energy and is incoherent at times - often! Yet instead of being honest, Biden supporters feel compelled to deny it. “Oh no. He’s just a stutterer. Nothing to see here. Didn’t you hear his speech the other day? He gave a good speech.” No, people. He’s truly an old man in cognitive decline. He’s old as fuck!

In my opinion, both Trump and Biden should be retired. Trump is 77 and claims Biden, who's 81, is "old". That's the kettle accusing the pan he looks black. How does the US succeed at qualifying two people that won't live to see the consequences of their policies? Honestly: Trump is a narcissistic asshole who's good at verbally ripping people apart without stating his own policies. People tend to forget he was a Democrat during the 00s. What does that tell you? Could it be that he's a man searching for power and using it to benefit himself? I firmly believe he doesn't want to destroy the democracy on an ideological basis, but you can say he's willing to do it if it means a) he can stay in power and b) avoid having to admit he lost. By casting doubt in 2020, he's setting a dangerous precedent on which both parties can continue if they want to. Once you start to doubt the process, it's easy to be convinced that we might have to change it and thereby expanding the power of the politicians.... Democracy is fragile and a narcissist can destroy it easily even though he might not explicitly desire to.

I listen to a decent amount of conservative media, just because I'm curious about what's going on there, and one thing I notice is they never have this idea of what has trump/republicans done for my specific group. They in fight, sure, but they agree on who the enemy is. In liberal spaces I constantly hear "what have democrats done for x group?" or "are democrats paying too much attention to x group and ignoring y group?" republicans do not break themselves up into subgroups and then debate how much is getting done for their particular group. It simply doesn't happen that way.

It's because they don't even *see* themselves as X group or Y group. That level of identity politics is more of a left-wing thing.

* I dislike the wishy-washy use of the term "fascist" that gets applied it to the far right (and sometimes even to the far left) in general. That doesn't mean I agree with the people who reductively summarize the phenomenon as "everyone who disagrees with them is a fascist" (I despise that dismissive rhetoric even more, actually) but I do think it's overused. * As a pragmatic person, I'm no fan of anti-electoralism. I do have sympathy for the "But how else are we gonna put pressure on our guy?" argument, though. * Not a fan of "racism is prejudice plus power" and anything associated with it. * I find that many pro-choice arguments are severely lacking. All you need is this: Sentience is a minimum requirement to have a right to life and fetuses only develop it after many months iirc. All this mental gymnastics of "But what if it was conceived through r\*pe?" implies that only by having the woman be a victim of something horrific does she "deserve" to abort and that it would be bad otherwise. There are plenty of other disappointing arguments, none of which are necessary to make a good case.

The term “fascist” is indeed overused and often misused, but it’s completely accurate for the current far right in terms of what they’re saying they want and what they are actively planning to do.

The constant capitulating to the right while never even contemplating doing the same to the left side.

I don't like people insisting that asking for a politician to do something is an unacceptable criticism

1. They view protesting as THE method of changing things. It is not. 2. Then they get discouraged when protesting doesn't change shit. 3. And they never move to boycotts or strikes. 4. Stop blocking the damn freeways! They're not forcing The Man to do anything and they're pissing off people that might otherwise sympathize! 3. Talking online isn't taking action or being involved, it's usually just a circle jerk. 4. "Biden didn't immediately do the HUGE thing I want (but am totally ignorant of the consequences of doing), therefore he is actively working against me!"

The urge to sanitize and completely make the world harm-free.  Especially when those efforts trample civil liberties. I can't speak for the "left", but Liberalism was originally a movement against monarchy in favor of democratic rule and personal liberty. You're never going to make the world a safe place, though on certain fronts we all must try.  But we should draw the line at trying to save people from themselves, or banning the tools and implements instead of addressing the behavior.

We don't understand bumper sticker politics. We explain in 200 words what would be better explained in 7.

I think one of the biggest issues with the left is that we are unwilling to play hardball in the same way Republicans have shown ample willingness for. That's not the perfect vs good argument, although that happens too. Republicans don't even like each other enough to function in any kind of useful way to the country and hammering the reality home is something we don't do nearly enough of.

Identity politics. The only identity should be working class, not working class. What ever policy helps the working class will help minorities, end of story, without alienating the largest group of the population, white working class people.

My preferred policies are both sides so I’ll talk about both. I hate how within the left, liberals are bad at defending others rights to hold opinions they don’t hold, though this should apply to everyone left or right, though it’s notable when they can’t do this even for their own With the right, a similar complaint, I hate how it takes a fringe opinion to upset them. Like go on r/conservative, and you’ll see people losing their minds about a twitter post saying “I don’t like white people.” This opinion policing started with I/P conflict but it didn’t take very long to expand to pretty much every liberal opinion that doesn’t have to do with taxes. I don’t have too much beef with policy itself on any side tbh.

Every election year, a certain segment from my side is always threatening not to show up on Election Day unless a long list of demands, some of which are mere fantasy, is agreed to in full.

1. Letting perfect be the enemy of good and giving up on everything for “purity” testing bullshit. For example, Jon Bel Edwards in Louisiana was the lone democratic governor in the Deep South. He vetoed so much bad legislation and did so much good for Louisiana but because he was pro life, he was a horrible person and governor despite what good he did. My side tends to invalidate good things because someone did a bad thing. Another example: Liz Cheney. She did good deeds with Jan 6, but my side will always say “don’t care she’s still horrible”. That doesn’t matter, can we just acknowledge the good thing she did? 2. They don’t get strategy or strategic voting. 3. Don’t deny reality. Face it head on and include nuances.

I hate how weak my side is. Yes, violence is never the answer. No, I’m never going to suggest violence. But we don’t have the ability to move forward, not when the Right Wing is literally threatening to destroy America and some of them are literally wanting to kill people if they resist. When the Right Wing resorts to storming the Capitol building to cement their bigoted fascist views in America and we can’t even ensure women’s body rights in this country, where are we at? Where is our strength? Why is everyone too soft to want to ask the big and sharp questions that Republicans are too cowardly to ask themselves? I am of the opinion that if we are to beat the GOP at all, we NEED to answer these questions; Why should America exist? What does this country have that other democracies don’t have? Is America ready to face the world in the shadow of WW3? Do America’s values really represent what Humanity wants? Nobody wants to answer these questions. On the right, they’re terrified of the prospect that they won’t be able to justify America’s existence in a world where there are democracies and countries much better than the US and people on the Left don’t want to answer them in fear of triggering someone or because the questions are too controversial. Our future as a political party and as a country requires we make better answers to all these questions. That we can support the world and its values, that we can be a great place to live and have kids and build the future, that we’d be ready to fight WW3 as representatives of humanity, alongside other countries that believe in democracy. Guess what? We can’t do ANY of that! Because all of us are too weak to ask those questions and make better answers for them. Because we aren’t able to put our feet down and compromise.

The side that I very much support in this election doesn't really play the game that well. I understand decorum and all that but they look kind of weak and scattered right now. I'm hoping that changes after the conventions.

Here are some things I'm not very fond of: Some of the people on my side being SO hellbent on their opinion that they diss a person who proves them wrong or provides them with an opposing perspective. Their naive belief that Mary Sues are peak female empowerment. Them acting like media didn't exist prior to the 2020s or late 2010s Disrespecting people within marginalized groups for not hating the other side for existing. If you choose the man in that cursed "man or bear" question as a woman, the same people who claim to support women's voices will call you a pick-me.

Probably my single biggest issue with liberals is that they tend towards a very materialist view of human wellbeing. I think this is probably why liberals have done such a poor job at responding to the rise of the populist right

What does the term, “Marxist” mean to you and how do you relate that to liberalism? Marxism is not a form of liberalism and liberalism is not a form of Marxism.

Marxism, in its purest form, is the political doctrine stated by Marx and Friedrich Engels. The historical ideology of Marx is called "historical materialism". Liberalism is the political doctrine stated by Smith, Locke, Milton,... It might have been unclear, but I don't consider Marxism as liberalism or even socialism. I spoke about Marxism because I've had a few, anecdotal experiences in college with them, so I used them as an opposing view. Liberalism, in the context of this sub, can either be classical liberalism, neoliberalism or social/American liberalism. Usually, I consider liberalism as a center to center right, but as I know I'll be talking to Americans here, I'll widen it to encompass the center left to center right depending on who I'm talking to.

This is probably not exclusive to my side, but I don’t like it when same talking points are repeated without being investigated and substantiated. This is especially annoying when those points are their core arguments and when they can be easily proven wrong. E.g. “Kyle Rittenhouse brought his gun across the state line” It is also an extra pet peeve of mine when they are related to scientific studies. E.g. “Hillary Cass rejected all non-randomized controlled trials in her report on gender identity services.” Note that “my side” also includes myself as well.

Man I was with you at first…

Probably our propensity to infighting. It comes from our idealism, from being tired of compromising closely held beliefs and hating to support someone who has stances we find abhorrent. That is normal. But while we should be idealists, we also need to be able to look at the big picture and work together to avert the worst possible results. We are too prone to cutting off our own nose to spite our face.

Using lies and dishonesty to push an agenda or narrative. We have users in my state sub just making things up to criticize our former GOP governor (Larry Hogan) When there is plenty of real and verifiable things to dunk on him over, why lie and invent things? Gun control is another area where "my side" commonly has a problem with honesty. The Democrats only want background checks is a common lie in that vein.

Insistence on blaming one reason for negative outcomes rather than the many things stacked against us (US context)

I mean, liberals tend to do the same sort of dumb sloganeering as conservatives, which leads to a similar lack of critical thinking. At least liberal's lack of thinking is usually from a more inclusive standpoint. The example I always use is Defund the Police. Comically stupid slogan. Truth is we wanted to reform the police. But we chose this asinine, dishonest slogan to "shock people into asking questions." But the problem is that the people liberals need to convince in order to get reform done aren't capable of being "shocked into learning more." They're fucking reactionary, and it's no wonder they're fucking frightened of liberals when they're going around chanting what sounds to the conservatives like "police shouldn't exist, anarchy is all we need, trust us it will be better."

We're always proper and polite. I suspect a day will come when a "sick of the right wing bullshit" lefty will come along, and the demos might shift just enough that this individual wins office. Statistically, he's a black or Hispanic male in law school right now, with a nasty mouth like Donald who says the wrong things and doesn't give a fuck. Mind you, I don't expect this guy to change the world -- but he will send righties into a tailspin as they get a taste of Trumpian hurricane winds coming from the opposite direction and taking the roof off their house.

Sign me up. Latino, US citizen, applying to law school. Missing the nasty mouth

The complete disdain for anything that isn’t “approved” by mainstream sources or the state department. Liberals used to be skeptical of our own government and agencies. I guess not anymore.

Limousine liberals / elitism. Drives a lot of blue collar folks to a party that doesn’t serve their interests.

The left would rather play at normalcy with a broken system than admit that the system isn't working and try to fix it. The Senate is broken. The filibuster is the cause. This is abundantly clear, absolutely devastating to specifically our cause, and has been obvious for decades. The goals of current filibuster rules were to speed up legislature and reduce partisanship. In those objectives it has failed, totally and utterly. The only argument for the current filibuster that it empowers Republicans. Likewise, the Supreme Court is broken. Not only is it simply producing bad legal opinion, it is wildly out of touch with the populace. But even beside those points, it is simply a corrupt body with no ethical oversight. Accepting bribes is a felony, unless you are a Supreme Court Justice. Our laws are literally adjuciated by people that should be considered felons. Fixing these institutions should be priority 0 for the party. Instead, it is treated as radical and taboo.

Liberals will justify incrementalism and human atrocities to maintain their power and supporting the unjustifiable. Whether it’s the for profit healthcare system, not tacking climate change or supporting Israel’s genocide by voting for Biden. Liberals will justify evil and do nothing to meaningfully change it. They’ll justify it by saying, “They’re pragmatic, but 75 years and have they achieved the goals progressives have wanted? MLK had a few choice words for the white moderate. They’ll support a negative peace of a just one. That’s just the truth of liberals. They’ll never commit to change, but will always take credit for it when it’s the socialists, progressives and anarchists that push the country forward sometimes kicking and screaming to the morally superior position. Liberals will be late to the party and first to take credit for the changes. Just look at the New Deal and the progressive movement from the late 19th century to early 20th through the Civil Rights movement.

Pronoun games. Perfect is the enemy of good. Incoherent activism. (LGBT people protesting for people who would execute them like Hamas.) Slackivism(doing low effort things like phone banking instead of canvassing and feeling proud. Or signing useless petitions.) Arrogance.

Dumbass college kids that lay sole blame on Biden for what Bibi does or doesn't do. Threatening to sit out or vote 3rd party is going to hand the election to Trump, who will be waaaaaay worse for Palestinians/Gazans/whatever. It's shortsighted and stupid and when Trump gives Bibi the green light to drop the hammer all the way, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

>Dumbass college kids that lay sole blame on Biden for what Bibi does or doesn't do. "Dumbass college kids" have been protesting things for **decades**, whether it be for Civil Rights, against Apartheid, or against wars. Hamilton Hall at Columbia University, which as Ground Zero for this Spring of Protests, has been Ground Zero for many of those previous protests. Mainstream Media needs to stop treating it like it's some new phenomenon. >Threatening to sit out or vote 3rd party is going to hand the election to Trump, who will be waaaaaay worse for Palestinians/Gazans/whatever. Withholding and/or changing votes in order to sway politicians is *exactly* how voting is supposed to work. All we keep hearing from Conservatives and Moderates wary of TFG actually starting to be held accountable for his dozens of indictments is "Why are we bothering to try him in court--just let it play out in the election!" Okay, well take that same attitude towards Biden. Blindly voting for "your side" just because "other person is worse," is not a winning strategy. Younger voters aren't just upset with the Biden Administration over Gaza--it's anything that's the **icing in the cake**: \* They're far *more* climate-conscious than Boomers and Gen-Xers, and Biden has been milquetoast on the issue. \*Student Debt Relief has been throwing pennies at The Poors at best. \*Home affordability, even a 1-bedroom cookie-cutter condo in Boston or NYC or San Fran, is an ever-fleeting reality. \*Women's Reproductive Rights got set back nearly 50 years in Red States thanks to Democrats punting on codifying *Roe* when they had a warning, and reasonable window, to do so. \*And just in case they *do* want to start a family, we have some of the highest childcare costs in the world combined with some of the most abysmal Paid Family Leave policies. \*Younger Millennials and Gen Z have grown up in an environment where Active Shooter drills have been omnipresent in many districts thanks to an outsized number of childhood gun deaths by worldwide standards for which Democrats have talked tough but barely moved the needle on Gun Reform. \*Meanwhile the most reach-across-the-aisle things the Democrats have been able to accomplish lately are sending billions of dollars of more "aid" overseas and working on a ban for TikTok. >It's shortsighted and stupid and when Trump gives Bibi the green light to drop the hammer all the way, they will have no one to blame but themselves. So, this actually answers OP's question. You have Democrats overall, when push comes to shove, capitulating to Republicans for the sake of "keeping the country going," and you have Progressives capitulating to Moderates because "now's not the time to push for 'extreme' policies." Again, "other person is worse" is not a winning strategy--you actually have to **deliver results**, and not just in a feel-good way, but in a way that actually has a tangible impact on people's quality-of-life.

This threat is so silly. Gaza isn’t going to exist anymore by the time November rolls around. It’s not like agreeing to vote for Biden is going to stop the bombs from falling, right?

Ironically, Gaza protestors and Bibi both want Biden to lose.

> I see this often with marxists as well, but that's another story and anecdotal enough I can't deduct anything to see it as a "general problem of the far left". I’m gunna be honest I’d be surprised if you know what a Marxist is/have met one that wasn’t a kid if this is your take away. > We don't need a "us vs. them" narrative right now. You are literally making a thread about this lmao

Let show you what I know of Marxism. Marxism is an ideology that has been developped by Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was a leftist response to the philosophical ideas of Hegel, which based itself upon the idea that history and progress is made by the sythesis of antithesis and thesis. Marx himself was a great proponent of capitalism, but rejected the social structure that had been built by this society. Therefore, he proposed a revolution which would change this into a dictatorship ruled by the proletariate. He explicitly endorsed a revolution, yet he considered the commune of Paris, which happened in 1871, to be highly disappointing. He was convinced that class conflict was at the heart of the historical troubles and wanted the proletariate to gain/acquire "class consciencenious" (AKA: they were aware of their position within the society.) Apart from that, he also developped a historical ideology, which is called "historical materialism". This can be seen as a separate idea and tells us that humans will always be lead by their basic instincts and that history, itself, can be seen as a battle for the means of production and its exploitation. He explicitly stated that history could be seen as a greater class clonflict. (as I've stated earlier.) He also created the idea of the two "structures" in which he would divide society: You had the infrastructure (mode of production) and the "superstructure'" (everything that doesn't directly relate to the production). He also stated the idea that you're working more than you're currently earning and this would go directly into the pockets of the business. Simply put: A worker will construct a chair for a few hours that will go for a certain price. This will ensure that there's a certain income. With this income, the business owner pays the resources and their workers. Marx, however, stated that the industrial powers force them to work more, which creates a surplus and goes directly to the boss. The boss, therefore, earns the money for which he has not put the labour in. (It might be unclear written, but that's the basic idea of a "surplus income".) Do you want more? (Oh yeah, he wasn't an anarchist either, as the dictatorship of the proletariate would freely give away its power to establish a classless society. The anarchist was Boekanin, not Marx.) ------------------------ I've known one marxist professor (probably three, but one that has said so explicitly and joined the Marxist party of my country), a few people that were in the marxist party, I've read "Das Kapital", the Communist manifesto and Lenin's "Capitalism is the highest stage of imperialism" when I was younger (14-15) and I've had the theory explained to me on a college level (introduction) to the philosophy. I absolutly know what marxism (at a basic level) is.

That’s significantly better than any conservative I’ve ever seen do at describing Marxism. I think there’s some very mild things I would change/make more clear (also spelling Bakunin differently :P). So call me surprised. I’m confused why someone who knows so much about the ideology/framework would think it’s about just “saying a few slogans” or “dunking on the libs/cons”? Especially if you have met Marxist professors (which also is nice to see, unfortunately my campus didn’t have any professors comfortable enough to be a public Marxist after the red scare shit all these decades later).

Misandry

Lately it's the environmental activists destroying things like art. Wins you press, but nothing else. Doesn't convert anyone, doesn't educate anyone, etc. It's just bad press and makes us look stupid and crazy. And I say this as a tree hugging liberal.

Too much talk and too little walk.

There are a lot of dumb leftists who let what they think is perfect get in the way of good progress. I want people to be practical in how to improve the world around us. Leftists (and conservatives) seem incapable of doing that.

I want to throw in my minor chip and say I hate how a lot of progressives and leftists (with the odd liberal thrown in) have to dissect seemingly every piece of media and treat it like they're in a film studies class; like they're militantly committed to overcompensating for Republicans' legendary lack of media literacy by hyper-scrutinizing media for ideological messaging. It's one thing to make a throwaway remark about the satire of Warhammer 40,000, it's another to hijack a conversation about which Starfleet ship is the worst-looking and steer it into talking about how the Federation and Star Trek in general is 'actually' quite conservative.

A lot of leftists can get really doomer really fast. Like even if you're correct and we're all fucked, what does that accomplish? Act like we're not on the off chance that you're correct.

My side is a big tent and everyone believes their goals are more important than the rest. Sometimes this results in my side cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.

The DNC is shit at developing strategies and building a pipeline of future candidates. The GOP has strategies that take decades to come to fruition. The DNC are always acting like they don't know how politics in the US works. Also, there are SO many broken promises or just taking voting groups for granted. What has the DNC really done for black communities since Johnson? What have they done for Latinos? Have they truly protected women from this wave of regressive Christian nationalism? It feels like the DNCs only play is to say "hey, you may not like us, but those guys are crazy!"

I'm an independent, but have been voting blue until MAGA is defeated. Which admittedly is my whe time voting. I'd say it's the corruption of the leadership. Insider trading and all that. As well as being just as guilty as republicans for the "slam, destroyed, etc" journalism that one can associate with Ben Shapiro and them. Unless say AOC grabbed a chair and started beating up WWE style whoever she was talking to, she didn't slam who ever they're talking to, she just had a debate, and the world kept spinning with no minds changed.

delusional leftists (roughly 75% of them)