I want to draw attention to the elephant in the room.
Leading up to the election, and perhaps even more prominently now, we've been seeing droves of people on the internet displaying a series of traits in common.
- Claiming to be leftists
- Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
- Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
- Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
- Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is "to the left of them"
- Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
- Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism
When you look at an aerial view of these behaviors in conjunction with one another, what they're accomplishing is pretty plain to see, in my opinion. It's a way of utilizing the moral scrupulousness of the left to cut our teeth out politically. We get so caught up in giving these arguments the benefit of the doubt and of making sure people who claim to be leftists have a platform that we're missing ideological parasites in our midst.
This is not a good-faith discourse. This is not friendly disagreement. This is, largely, not even internal disagreement. It is infiltration, and it's extremely effective.
Before attacking this argument as lacking proof, just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn't take advantage of it?
By refusing to ever question those who do nothing with their time in our spaces but try to drive a wedge between us, to take away our power and make us feel helpless and hopeless, we're giving them exactly that vector. I am telling you, they are using it.
We need to stop letting them. We need to see it for what it is, get the word out, and remember, as the political left, how to use the tools that we have to change society. It starts with us between one another. It starts with what we do in the spaces that we inhabit. They know this, and it's why they're targeting us here.
Stop being an easy target. Stop feeding the cuckoo.
Again, you prove my point. A person could apply King's own words to show how he'd denied the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community.
It's really amazing to me how you can keep on disproving your own assertations and still not notice it.
Exactly the way King not speaking on Vietnam proves my point.
But clearly not in the case of Palestinian liberation, since democrats' refusal to address it lost them the election. King not speaking about Vietnam actually proves my point, because not only did he extract the concessions from Johnson he was working for on civil rights, but he caved to pressure because it was no longer advantageous to deny it as an issue since popular sentiment was overwhelming.
It's not amazing, but actually kind of pathetic, how desperate you are to dodge the points i'm making. I'm not surprised.
Literally every time you've tried to prove something you've ended up proving my point.
In fact, you brought up Winston Churchill and the need for everyone to line up behind his leadership to beat the Nazis.
And by bringing up Gaza you've done it again. Trump has tripled down on his support for Israel and the slaughter has only gotten worse.
I wish I did as good a job selling my ideas as you have.
Lmao, just saying 'you proved my point' doesn't make it true, but I'm ok with walking away from this one cus it really seems like you need it more lol
My point was that it's better to be practical and take small steps than it is to be idealistic and make no progress, or even go backwards.
I used Douglas and MLK as examples of people doing what they could, and you demonstrated that's exactly what they did.
You even showed that King had avoided talking about Viet-Nam because he didn't want to upset President Johnson.
Right, and my point is that even while MLK and FD both made their own strategic choices for advancing their causes, both have pointed out repeatedly that those who do not feel the burn of justice denied cannot set the timeline for those who do. It's the actual point MLK was making when he said:
spoiler
and Frederick Douglass, who said:
spoiler
Even if there is some objective measure for when it is time for radical justice and when it is not, that determination can't be imposed by those who are unaffected by the injustice of inequality. To them, there will always be a 'more convenient season' for justice. Those who profess to seek the same justice as those who cry out but refuse to stand with them can complain all they want about the methods designed to agitate them into action, but (by MLK's estimation), righteousness is always on the side of those fighting for justice.
And that's what's so funny about you.
You can't just say that I made a valid point and move on. You're so consumed with "winning" that you keep repeating exactly what I said telling me I am wrong.
As long as we keep agreeing, I'll keep pointing it out.
Lmao, sorry, FD's writing is so loud I can't hear your sealioning over the sound of his righteous fury
And where exactly does he say that the only thing we should do is lash out mindlessly without any sort of strategy? If you show me somethign where he advocated barreling along without any sort of plan, I'll concede the point.
The point isn't that we must always chose agitation, the point is that you cannot blame the presence of tension on those who agitate for justice, because the tension was already present. Those who agitate against injustice are merely bringing that tension into the light.
You cannot set the timeline for another's liberation.
So, you're agreeing with me again and saying that we should use strategy?
Lmaooooooooo
Nope. MLK is saying it doesn't matter what strategy you think is best, because the privileged and the unaffected cannot dictate to the oppressed and the dis-privileged what strategy they ought to take to achieve justice owed to them.
The people who agitate are the sole arbiters on what strategy is justified and what timeline is acceptable in the pursuit of justice. If you find that to be inconvenient and ill-timed, that is the entire point.
Lol "Oh, so you agree with me then?!?" lmfao get out of here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin
King's people held off on the Montgomery bus boycott until they had the right person.
Almost as if King wasn't just rushing blindly ahead.
Look man, I think I've covered this pretty well, I'm not sure I want to keep beating a dead horse. MLK and any other agitator for justice can pick their own timeline for justice. Telling someone else that now is not the time is what MLK is criticizing. You're free to withhold your own agitation to the proper time but you can't tell someone else to wait. I feel like that's pretty clear.
So, again you agree with me.
Everyone is in the fight against Trump, and we need to listen to the smart leaders and not run off like idiots.
I wouldn't fault you for being ESL, but I'd be impressed if you could clip enough consecutive words from that comment that supports what you're saying.
I think I'm done with this
So, you kept saying I was wrong, but couldn't prove that Douglas didn't support the candidate who was the best of a bad lot, and helped me prove that MLK used a careful strategy that included not getting into a fight over LGBT+ rights.
You've been done since this thing started, you're just to obstinate to admit what anyone could see.
And, as Isaac Asimov pointed out, the one who has to resort to insults is the one who has run out of ideas. But since you started it, it's unconscious privilege on your part to attack immigrants.
I wasn't insulting you, I was allowing for the possibility that maybe you didn't understand the words as I was saying them.
It's not a bad thing to be an immigrant or be ESL, sorry if you felt that was an insult.
I don't need to insult you. Your own words betray you.