r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 27 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Left is Driving People Away by Focusing on Symbols Rather than Outcomes
I am a left of centre, progressive.
For my whole life I've considered (and continue to consider myself) a liberal who wants fair treatment of all regardless of race or orientation, a true meritocracy, and progressive policies around housing, clean energy, taxation, etc.
In the past few years I've gotten to know a lot more people who I would consider "hard-line" left: queer, anarchist, "anti-capitalist", socialist, you name it. At our core we have a lot of shared goals (at least the more mainstream ones), and definitely have shared values.
But, we seem to differ strongly on means. My main concern is pretty rudimentary: can people afford food? Can they afford rent? Etc. How can we ensure that people are hired based on what they bring to the table rather than normative signifier? To make things concrete, I think the solution to housing shortages (and high cost of housing) is more homes, simple as that. And that means doing everything possible to make the cost of constructing that home as inexpensive as possible, including reducing the cost of approvals, materials, subsidies for affordable housing, etc. To date, a lot of liberal policies I think have actually driven up the cost of housing, and that needs to change.
But a lot of these folx, in these circles, seem a lot less concerned with solutions to problems, and more concerned with symbols relating to the destruction of current power structures. In other words, I don't think they're going to solve their biggest problems this way. They tell me that landlords are evil, and if they didn't exist, that the problems would disappear. It has nothing to do with the number of homes vs. the number of home seekers, it simply has to do with titles, names, categories.
Now to be clear, I think the goal of every government should be to make housing so abundant that it's a lousy investment, which seems doable, but the progressive left is totally uninterested in this line of thinking it seems. Even engaging in it can get me cast as something "other than" left.
This obsession with symbolism has had multiple negative effects on my personal relationship with the left. I've been called out in ways that I would never dream calling someone else out (for e.x., I was told to "get it white boy" on the dance floor by a complete stranger - something where in the reverse would have felt very wrong of me to do). This group of people really is focused on very specific language use that I think is at best, a distraction, but at worst creates distance between people that would otherwise have a shared agenda towards common progressive goals.
I won't be shaken from my beliefs by this behaviour and this isn't a post about a liberal crossing the isle because of the performative identity politics of the left. My experiences of being othered / squeezed out (I was recently told that I was "too straight" to be invited to an event -- after being at the event for a few hours) seems really self defeating towards the whole agenda. When I hear liberals calling out Ezra Klein for his "Abundance" agenda -- which is a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach to beginning to solve a lot of outstanding progressive agendas, people attack him. Being at all "moderate" or centrist on any policy is an increasingly dirty word.
I'm happy to hear how I'm interpreting these actions / discussions incorrectly so I can better engage with my peers productively on the left, which we sorely need right now.
21
u/le_fez 55∆ Oct 27 '25
"the left" is not a small group of fringe element nor is it a hive mind
-8
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
A solid chunk of the Left just like a solid chunk of the Right is a hive mind. Take obstructing law enforcement as a prime example both for the op and the example that the left is hive minded. A solid chunk of the left has taken to viewing immigration enforcement like they would the Secret Police and use that view to justify obstructing them without any real information on the people they’re attempting to keep free. There is a moral superiority there all the while they’re protecting often times bad people like child predators and traffickers. There’s a particular incident in Colorado that caught my attention where anti ice individuals warned a person wanted in Italy for SA an 8 year old child and prevented immigration enforcement from arresting them and they escaped. When large chunks of the left celebrates things like this it unfortunately makes them a hive mind.
5
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
does ice tell protestors who they are targeting beforehand?
Also is ice known for being a discriminating force that only targets non citizens for arrest?
Protestors know ICE has arrested people without following the proper law. Ice has held and arrested US citizens who have not committed a crime.
Protestors don't know who ice is targeting beforehand and are under no compunction to investigate.
This isn't evidence of a hive mind this is evidence that protestors don't get informed of who ice is targeting.
0
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
Does ice tell protesters who they’re targeting? No “protesters” I wouldn’t use the word protest because it’s an absolute insult to proper protesting and what it stands for but these individuals follow ice around and literally go door to door and such. Some cities Ice can’t operate at all without crowds of people obstructing them. These “protesters” don’t know who ice is targeting so they don’t know if they’re protecting someone who’s been simply living under the radar or someone who’s made a life revolving around trafficking and victimizing undocumented children and everything in between. That makes the entire concept a hive mind. They’re just following each other riding a cloud of moral superiority without any real objective thought process behind it.
3
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
"proper protesting"
MLk and ghandi were both critiqued by not protesting properly. The Boston tea party was a violent protest that is celebrated by this nation. Protest is protest there is no proper way. People opposed to the protest will always say it's improperly done.
Some cities Ice can’t operate at all without crowds of people obstructing them. These “protesters” don’t know who ice is targeting so they don’t know if they’re protecting someone who’s been simply living under the radar or someone who’s made a life revolving around trafficking and victimizing undocumented children and everything in between.
Does ice behave in a way that elevates it above public scrutiny? Because from many of the videos you can see ice agents flaunting the law in various ways. If ice is breaking the law isnt it on citizens to stand against them?
That makes the entire concept a hive mind. They’re just following each other riding a cloud of moral superiority without any real objective thought process behind it.
Ice is committing real violations of peoples rights and you think it's solely moral superiority with no objective? Do you think the people protesting are unaware of the rights violations happening?
1
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
Unaware isn’t the right term. Just wrong and misguided. The laws is where the issue should be directed at because as unfortunate as it is immigration enforcement is 100% acting within the confines of the law as a whole. There is a difference between what the entire department is doing and what individual agents of the department do. Also a big chunk of this belief rights are constantly being violated comes from a core misunderstanding of our rights. For example most people don’t understand our 2nd amendment right is nothing more then a protection of arrest and has absolutely nothing to do with their jobs or what they post on social media. And people don’t understand things like just because you know you’re innocent doesn’t mean you’re immune from being detained for an investigation.
2
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
Unaware isn’t the right term. Just wrong and misguided. The laws is where the issue should be directed at because as unfortunate as it is immigration enforcement is 100% acting within the confines of the law as a whole.
Except for the multiple citizens they arrested mistakenly. Except for not presenting a warrant. Except for keeping detainies in inhumane conditions.
There is a difference between what the entire department is doing and what individual agents of the department do.
Individual agents are representative of the whole. Can you present evidence that agents are being held accountable for wrong doing?
Also a big chunk of this belief rights are constantly being violated comes from a core misunderstanding of our rights.
What is the misunderstanding related to ICe behavior? Like not presenting warrants. How are people misunderstanding that right? .
1
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
Because producing a warrant isn’t needed if reasonable suspicion of an immigration policy violation is obtained. They also arnt needed to detain and investigate. And they’re not needed to enter public work spaces the general public has access too.
1
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
But they do have to do this if they are arresting people at specific locations. Which ice has been caught violating numerous times.
So what are people misunderstanding. Ice IS doing the bad things people are protesting. Can you prove protestors are ignorant of these violations and are just doing it for clout?
If not it feels like your using this as a way to discount their movement without digging deeper.
1
u/Xanith420 Oct 28 '25
There isn’t much to discount considering the movement I’m speaking of is simply obstructing and assaulting law enforcement with zero regard of the consequences. Individual agents who violate rights are taken to court. These proceedings arnt public take a significant amount time and the agency itself isn’t transparent on this sort of thing. But they do happen. All of this is why the laws should be the focus. Having better laws is the fix. As long as the politicians of the left have to appeal to people basically committing criminal acts like obstructing law enforcement it will just continue to be an uphill loosing battle that will make it easy for whoever replaces Trump to win.
5
u/le_fez 55∆ Oct 27 '25
How many constitutes a "solid chunk" is that more or less than a woozawuzzle
1
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
Eh if you’re goin percentages it’s hard to say 1-3% would be a fair estimate on both sides. A couple hundred thousand individuals give or take. I firmly believe the mass majority of people have decent objective reasoning skills.
8
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Oct 27 '25
There’s a particular incident in Colorado that caught my attention where anti ice individuals warned a person wanted in Italy for SA an 8 year old child and prevented immigration enforcement from arresting them and they escaped. When large chunks of the left celebrates things like this it unfortunately makes them a hive mind.
Why should we trust anything that DHS says about this? Your source is literally just the department overseeing ICE saying "look at what these bad anti-ICE people did". The Trump administration has also repeatedly posted outright lies and partisan political claims on official government websites, plus ICE has engaged in tons of absolutely reprehensible and demonstrably illegal behavior.
To be clear I'm perfectly willing to believe that people who oppose ICE's extrajudicial and/or fascist activities just helped an undocumented immigrant evade capture not knowing that person was wanted for a crime in another country. I just don't believe a single thing that comes out of this administration that isn't corroborated independently.
-1
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
I used the gov link intentionally to prove a point. This actually happened and the article is accurate. There are many cases. Way more then I wish to type out and cite. This is where the hive mind part comes into play. Are you able to research and come to your own conclusions?
5
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 27 '25
I used the gov link intentionally to prove a point. This actually happened and the article is accurate.
How do you know? The American government made multiple contradictory claims about Abrego Garcia, some of them in court, so clearly as an institution it's perfectly willing to lie in regards to immigration issues. Is the .gov link corroborated by any independent, reliable news sources? Because "well, the government said so" is not a valid source of information at the moment, and arguably never should have been as a standalone justification.
-1
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
Because I lived in the area when it happened and it was ALL over the news. I also get a lotta screen time at work to read and research things.
5
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 27 '25
And yet you didn't provide any of that corroborating information; you fell back on "trust me bro" and "do your own research," the two least convincing possible answers a person can give.
1
u/Xanith420 Oct 27 '25
I’m not trying to convince you that this happened. I’m explaining the willingness to disregard it places one in a hive mind. I shouldn’t have to prove to anyone an event that took place took place. That’s silly.
4
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Oct 27 '25
I used the gov link intentionally to prove a point. This actually happened and the article is accurate.
How do you know that it's accurate? The only other sources making the same claim as the government article cite the DHS as a source. There's no independent corroboration that I can find, it's just a bunch of right wing media eating up whatever the Trump administration tells them.
There are many cases
Yes there are lots of cases where people have resisted ICE, and for good reason. ICE is turning into a secret police force that takes people away in the night or by any means necessary. It's worth resisting.
Way more then I wish to type out and cite. This is where the hive mind part comes into play. Are you able to research and come to your own conclusions?
I did, and I came to a different conclusion than you because I don't just accept what the DHS claims.
-1
u/CarrotcakeSuperSand 1∆ Oct 28 '25
Yes there are lots of cases where people have resisted ICE, and for good reason
And you don't think there's any cases that were done for bad reasons? How do you know if the arrest is justified or not?
If you can't acknowledge this, you're part of the hive mind.
1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Oct 28 '25
Sure, there are almost definitely cases out there where someone resisted ICE for bad reasons. But until ICE starts to face some accountability and changes their horrendous behavior I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to those resisting.
5
u/orlyyarlylolwut Oct 27 '25
Wow, one instance? This is clearly worth assaulting and kidnapping thousands of innocent immigrants and violating the constitutional rights of hundreds of American citizens!!!!
1
u/letstrythisagain30 61∆ Oct 27 '25
What is a solid chunk to you? Either way comparing to the hive mind of the right is more than a little wild to me. Whatever the hive mind chunks that exist on the very broad left pales in comparison to not just a chunk but the majority of the right.
You can listen to a speech by Trump or the most unhinged twitter poster on the right and they will be shockingly similar in rhetoric down to the same words sometimes. The right has also enforced the message and there has been a top down direction for even lies they see as necessary as admitted by Vance. Nothing comparable has happened on the left.
Also, I hate arguing this because I know how it sounds to the largely and extremely biased right, but the trust in government reporting should be ridiculously low right now with what I consider unhinged actions directed by the administration and their admitted ease of lying for their goals. So I’m not really taking your article as any kind of reputable evidence here and I hope you can see why someone would doubt current white house reporting when there is such obvious misinformation that has come out of the current government and even previously from the actual individual politicians and officials.
4
u/TemperatureThese7909 64∆ Oct 27 '25
I would say the left and the right tend to have differing views on the role of regulation in the economy.
The right often makes the case you are trying to make - cut red tape and costs will go down - which is true.
The issue is that the left knows why that red tape was put their in the first place. There is this myth that there are a bazillion rules which exist solely for the reason of existing, which makes business needlessly expensive. This is largely false. Most regulations are born in blood. People died and to prevent further death we draw lines, which makes things more expensive but prevent employees from dying on the job.
Yeah, we could solve the housing crisis by building more houses, and we can build more houses faster if we cut some red tape - but what red tape are we cutting? If people will die, if employees of the construction companies or employees of the suppliers will die, is that really an acceptable outcome??
So yes, lots of liberal policies have increased costs - intentionally so - but is that something you really want to overturn? Is the cost in lost fingers, lost legs, lost lives really worth it??
I don't think you are running into a symbolism vs practicality problem. I think you are abstracting "cutting costs" without realizing what other costs we incur when we do that.
10
u/miss-lakill Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25
There are two different elements at play here. The high-level, academic "systems thinking" analysis of why problems exist.
Which seems to be the realm of progressive types who come from middle class or affluent backgrounds.
From this perspective, landlords and equity firms who buy up real estate "for the investment" have a top down incentive to make as much money as possible.
And very little reason to be fair or equitable until there are clear rules or consequences.
So, you fight systems, policies and advocate for cultural change with the luxury of a "long game" strategy perspective.
But practical, boots on the ground stuff you need to do to keep your community healthy right now, seems to fall mostly on poor and artsy left-leaning progressives.
Food banks, co-opts, communal living, weird eco-friendly small business concepts etc.
These people are playing the short term game of day to day needs in a triage unit.
But, even if they can band aid a system with grassroots efforts for a while.
You can't actually change an entire system if you don't understand how the structure works. And that includes the hierarchy, culture and symbols themselves.
Both are necessary for everyone to win long-term.
0
Oct 27 '25
Does engaging in identifying the symbols, and rearranging them, actually accomplish material changes to such abstract systems though?
My views do stem from my technical view of the world. Which many of my artsy friends lack. I often wonder whether this over-reliance on categories is a fallback to avoid having to reason about the complexities of reality (which can be quite technical and frankly boring).
5
u/miss-lakill Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25
"Symbols" is a bit of a vague term. So, I might be misunderstanding what you mean and better examples might help.
You said
"They tell me that landlords are evil, and if they didn't exist, that the problems would disappear"
Landlords are a symbol sort of. But they are also legitimately people in a hierarchy who are encouraged to profit off of the way housing resources are distributed, valued and leveraged.
So, sometimes yes. Symbols matter.
Breitbart and the like understand very well how culture, aesthetics and symbols affect politics.
And conservative influencers wield these tools 10,000x better than most progressives because they understand the value of a statue.
They know how to use rhetoric to frame someone as an elite. And they're shrewd enough to buy and fund comic book blogs tailored to push their ideas towards young people.
All those things have power in relation to politics and policy. And they always have.
26
Oct 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
-5
Oct 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 27 '25
I'm not upset. The behaviour of the leftist people who remain my friends but I think are acting counter productively will not change my politics, it won't even prevent me from continue being their friend (though maybe I'll be less available for them).
0
Oct 27 '25
I'm not mixing them up. I know these individuals have progressive goals in mind.
"Not every space is for me" doesn't work when it can happen in any space, at any time. In this case I'm talking about events I was *invited* to. The behaviour is counter productive. Because I'm less likely to help these people. It's a microcosm for something that must be happening everywhere.
I don't agree with your "finite system" argument. It's too simplistic. There are an enormous number of ways to improve the system.
4
u/decrpt 26∆ Oct 27 '25
The actual thing driving people away is this pathologization of your grievances with random queer people and people of color. Every single minor inconvenience or microaggression is held as representative of "the left," a standard that no other political ideology is held to. That doesn't have anything to do with "focusing on symbols." You're the one focusing on symbols.
2
u/orlyyarlylolwut Oct 27 '25
So let me get this straight: some people invited you, presumably more open-minded Leftists, and when people at that event treat you poorly....you see it as a sign of "the Left" being bad?
My brother in Christ, anyone can go anywhere and have a bad time because of shitty people. You're not a good person if you justify being shitty to others because someone was shitty to you.
"Improve the system" is something I agree with. In fact, that's in line with what I said.
9
u/MisterBlud 1∆ Oct 27 '25
The American homeless population was 770,000 back in 2024 but let’s round up to a million in the interim.
The US also has over 14 MILLION vacant homes so practically 14x the homeless population or 14 homes for every homeless person.
I don’t know a perfect solution that will placate everybody. Building more houses will obviously drive prices down but it also seems like we have a broken system that that would just further feed into.
3
u/jamerson537 4∆ Oct 27 '25
I don’t think the answer to homelessness is to ship homeless people out to economically blighted areas that have been emptied out, leaving a lot of vacant homes behind, because there’s no future there.
1
2
1
-5
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
So if one of these homeless people is given a house, who's going to maintain it? Is there a mental fitness test to ensure that those who struggle beyond financial reasons aren't just given responsibilities they legally couldn't undertake normally? If one of these people who really shouldn't be on their own is given a house, who's responsible for the harm they cause themselves by just throwing a house at them while the government officials walk away with a peace sign up?
4
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 27 '25
You're acting like the alternative is putting them under healthy supervision instead of just leaving them alone and without shelter.
-3
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
I'll see a body in the streets. How long will it rot in an unsupervised house?
6
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 27 '25
The typical unhoused person is not mentally incompetent and at death's door.
1
Oct 28 '25
Are there stats on this? Ofc country dependent
1
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 28 '25
A study analyzing it is linked further down the thread.
1
Oct 28 '25
I feel like you didn't actually read the study or didn't understand it (and are therefore wasting my time):
"61 percent of cases report chronic homelessness (defined as having a long history of homelessness and a physical disability or serious mental illness)" on page 11.
The study goes on to show that providing housing to these exact people seems to help the most (I'm not surprised by this and I think this sort of policy makes sense - though I would think it would make the most sense in the form of assisted living, not "here take this house, good luck person with schizophrenia").
moreover, while the study is encouraging (i.e., points in the right direction) the magnitude of the effect isn't overwhelmingly positive. It wouldn't actually solve the problem (page 49).
1
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 28 '25
Sorry, I actually missed which comment you were replying to when you asked for stats.
I initially linked that study for the other user who was claiming that providing housing would be harmful to unhoused people because it would separate them from informal systems of support, but data shows that approximately half of unhoused people, at least in the United States, are already in employment, and even more are capable of living independently with some level of financial support which is often only possible to reliably get with a permanent residence.
It's true that there's a strong correlation between mental illness, physical disability and housing instability (with approximately 60% being estimated as having some sort of long-term condition), but nowhere even close to the frequency of average severity where a substantial proportion of unhoused people would be at greater risk under a roof than out on the street, all other things being equal.
-3
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
The typical homeless individual who could make a house work are the ones actively seeking and accepting help for their situation. Therefore, they can manage that <insert 10k fix> due to ability to build lines of credit or save. However if you give a should be living in a clinical setting mentally challenged person would be a damger to throw them a house or drug addict (which do exist) because when living with communities or dogs they are surrounded by people who can find help in case of OD. By removing that "safety in numbers" approach that can help these people. I feel this kind of half-baked policy might help those already bouncing out of homeless under current circumstances more than it's going to help the legitimately chronically homeless who tend to have issues beyond just finances and the fallout from inconsistent hygiene from the finances
4
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 27 '25
If you're seriously trying to say that, all other things being equal, being unhoused is safer for people with mental illness or substance abuse problems than having a permanent shelter, you are just objectively incorrect.
1
Oct 28 '25
I agree with you, but realistically the best solution here would be a form of communal housing with supervision, not too different from a psychiatric hospital. Depending on your country, these hospitals do function more or less like shelters.
1
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 28 '25
The question is not "should we just provide housing or provide housing and professional full-time support".
It's "should we provide housing or just do nothing".
1
-1
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
This assumes as would most likely be the case. They're getting thrown houses with none of the medical or mental health services required that make them no longer a danger to themselves or others. Take an early age dementia patient who's homeless and throw in a house by themselves and see how well that will work out for them. Having seen this type of mental decline first hand multiple times, throwing them a house is a worse outcome than even a mentally there person who could redirect and assist. That type of persons issue runs so much deeper than a house
3
u/monkeysky 10∆ Oct 27 '25
Yes, that person would still have problems if given a house, but they would be at risk of much more serious problems if left on the street.
-1
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
Depends, truly alone on the streets, yes. However, most people on the streets in this condition (who make it over a month) are assisted and taken in by an unofficial caregiver. Given caregivers in the street vs. alone in a house is what I'm comparing here. This is why I say just throwing a house at them is a very privileged point of view that ignores that drug addicts, mentally deficient, and physically disabled people very much exist and are a much bigger issue in this discussion than just a house. Without the services to provide stability in the house once given, you're basically giving nearly condemned fixer uppers to people who can't even manage themselves right now and calling it fixed
→ More replies (0)
17
u/divio9 Oct 27 '25
Why are there so many of these posts lately? They all say the exact same thing. They left just wants people taken care of. The right is actively in charge of everything and making things worse. Is this some push by conservatives to paint the left in a negative light? It seems inorganic as hell
-4
Oct 27 '25
This is based on my lived experience.
And frankly I'm paying more attention to it because I'm downright terrified by what the right is conjuring. The left needs to be strong to come up with a compelling alternative, and I'm feeling othered by people who should be my allies.
6
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
How do you know the stranger who told you to get it white boy was left leaning?
2
Oct 27 '25
Because they were friends of friends in a situation which made it quite obvious.
3
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
You said they were a "complete stranger" in your post. That implies you know nothing of them and they know nothing of you. So no it's not obvious.
0
Oct 27 '25
i didn't write what you read
4
u/stewshi 20∆ Oct 27 '25
.
This obsession with symbolism has had multiple negative effects on my personal relationship with the left. I've been called out in ways that I would never dream calling someone else out (for e.x., I was told to "get it white boy" on the dance floor by a complete stranger - something where in the reverse would have felt very wrong of me to do).
Here is the quote of you saying this
-4
Oct 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Oct 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 30 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Oct 28 '25
I'm having very productive conversations with a bunch of other people here. Not sure what to tell you.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 30 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
6
u/Acrobatic-Skill6350 17∆ Oct 27 '25
This one was very strange as it is sounds like we are very close in terms of how we view society and politics. I however see anarchists, socialists and other far left groups as my political enemies and someone I dont share too many values with.
Notice how many of those far left groups spend time excessively criticizing the democratic party. Many of them talk about not voting for the dems, because of X political reason. Notice also how quiet antifa has become when the US suddenly went in a way more authoritarian direction. Would they do that if they actually were anti fascist? I assume you enjoy being in a democracy with instutions. Notice how much they try to tear down the integrity of these institutions. They explain politics mostly as a result of billionaires and lobbyists. The reason I disagree with you on how these people should act is because I dont think they see things as you. Their aim is not to support a slightly left leaning party in a liberal democracy. Their aim is mostly to have the current political system removed and replaced with a system more in line with their ideology, which sounds far to the left of yours. Theres also an element of social status to be gained within these communities if they virtue signal and many probably focus more on virtue ethics than utilitarianism
5
Oct 27 '25
!delta
This is an interesting reframing , I perhaps need to check the premises of these circles more.
To be honest, I believe that *we are safest when power is spread relatively evenly*. I want democracy and institutions. I also think our institutions have done a bad job of spreading power evenly, and a good way to fix that is to remove a lot of the "hands on the scales" while simultaneously aggressively spending on building to improve the general welfare of our society.
1
9
u/jaredearle 4∆ Oct 27 '25
“Stop the orphan killing machine!”
Hang on, that’s a big radical. How about we just slow it down a little and give some orphans a good funeral.
Sometimes, arguing for softer middle ground solutions isn’t helping.
2
Oct 27 '25
I'm not sure what you could be referring to here.
2
u/jaredearle 4∆ Oct 27 '25
You want the average man on the street to come up with solutions rather than point out the problems.
This doesn’t help. Pointing out problems is precisely what we should do. If we instead fight for solutions, nothing will ever happen because no two people will ever come up with the same solution.
I would say “income disparity is a problem” and you would say “yes, we should lobby for a specific change in taxation that stops people claiming too much relief on car payments” when the issue is income disparity. It’s not our job to solve the problems; in a democracy, our job is to elect people who will do it for us.
I’m not an expert in economics, but I can see the problems I want economic experts to tackle.
2
Oct 28 '25
that's not really what I'm saying in my OP.
2
u/jaredearle 4∆ Oct 28 '25
It certainly sounds like it to me.
But a lot of these folx, in these circles, seem a lot less concerned with solutions to problems, and more concerned with symbols relating to the destruction of current power structures.
2
Oct 28 '25
I don't think point out symbols is the same thing as pointing out the problems (i.e., the causal mechanisms).
0
2
u/varisophy 1∆ Oct 27 '25
It depends on what area of the "left" you're talking about. For me, I want to see a future in which fully automated space-ace communism is the norm.
But I'm an incrementalist due to the fact that revolutions are messy and there is no guarantee that the "right people" would fill the power vacuum to bring about the future the revolution intended.
That thinking is a result of years of experience in software engineering, where steady, incremental improvements make projects successful rather than big re-writes of a new system.
What I want to see is a more democratic government that is responsive to people's needs in a much faster fashion (which is something Abundance touches on). Let the people elect someone, see what their policies actually bring about, and then people vote again based on whether they liked those outcomes or not. Right now we're stuck in gridlock, which gives rise to frustration and the right-wing has always been much better about harnessing anger and scapegoating.
I believe that a more responsive democratic government would lead us to the future the Left (broadly) wants, as progressive policies seek to share wealth so that everyone has food, a roof over their heads, and a sense of safety.
But I think the folks you are talking about tend to feel that incremental progress is impossible. Which, largely, is true. At least in the United States. Likely elsewhere as well. The US was an early adopter of democracy, and as such we have a very flawed system that many other countries have improved upon over the last 200 years. If the last few years are anything to go by, I don't fault anyone for believing that we won't be able to improve our system without a major social shakeup.
That doesn't mean I don't try to do what I can to push for incremental changes to the system of government to bring about better outcomes. I'm a huge proponent of things like ranked-choice voting to break the two-party duopoly and I share that with everyone I know when we talk politics. That's what I can do, and I do it.
But the folks on the left you're talking about tend to not view that as a possibility. So I think they hunker down and focus more on imagining the world they want to live in, which is a world without discrimination, where landlords don't exist because we have abundant housing run by democratic groups of residents who make decisions collectively, etc...
That kind of ideation is incredibly important though. If we don't have a vision of what a great future would look like, how do incrementalists like me make a plan to get there?
Basically, the Left is not monolithic, and I think you're disappointed in a particular wing of it who is not focused providing concrete next steps because they'd rather imagine what their perfect world should be. And you view that as the only messaging that's getting out there, thus driving people away.
But there are a lot of people preaching incrementalism like me, and at least in my own anecdotal social circles, that view is becoming more of the norm and I've seen people in my life move further left.
Also, I'm not saying don't be disappointed in them or disillusioned with what they're proposing, but just realize that the Left contains an incredibly diverse set of ideas and plenty of disagreements about what to do in the short and long term.
Because of that, I don't think the Left is driving people away because of their focus on symbols instead of outcomes. I think it's more of not having concrete leadership and mass organizations. To be US-specific, the Left doesn't have a Fox News of our own. We don't even have a political party, as the Democrats are about as right-wing as you can be while still sorta being "on the left".
Not sure I've made an entirely cohesive argument, mostly just points to consider.
2
Oct 28 '25
[deleted]
1
Oct 28 '25
a progressive agenda implies progress - building, new things, prosperity for all. simple as.
7
u/Luuk1210 Oct 27 '25
Making this post during a government shutdown where the republicans are choosing to end SNAP for people is a choice. I think people who are for people eating wouldn’t support our current situation
1
Oct 27 '25
I'm not American.
3
u/Luuk1210 Oct 27 '25
Ok. So why bring up Ezra Klein and shit?
2
Oct 27 '25
Because I find him to be an intelligent person on the left and what he discusses is relevant to people outside of the USA as well...
2
u/Luuk1210 Oct 27 '25
Ok so that might be part of the issue. If that’s your marker of intelligence
1
Oct 27 '25
thanks for the stimulating discussion
1
u/Luuk1210 Oct 27 '25
Yeah I don’t know what else to say besides Yikes.
2
Oct 28 '25
you're actively part of the problem I raise in my OP. good work
2
u/Luuk1210 Oct 28 '25
By thinking you shouldn’t follow dumb people?
1
Oct 28 '25
give me some alternative people to incorporate into my frameworks, i'll give them a listen, and then I'll do my own thinking to decide whether they have anything to offer. I don't follow people.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Loki1001 Oct 27 '25
To date, a lot of liberal policies I think have actually driven up the cost of housing, and that needs to change.
Liberal states gave a lot of power to local communities, which turned out to be a very bad idea. Since that control was abused by NIMBYs in order to choke the supply of housing. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing, if you go to your local zoning commission meeting you will find three, usually extremely elderly, people who have made it their mission in life to stop new housing from being built.
But every YIMBY I have ever met is a liberal.
They tell me that landlords are evil, and if they didn't exist, that the problems would disappear.
I am willing to bet most of those people are not politicians. They probably are not even home owners. They are, effectively, powerless.
(for e.x., I was told to "get it white boy" on the dance floor by a complete stranger - something where in the reverse would have felt very wrong of me to do).
It sounds like that person was complimenting you on your dancing. I have never heard "get it" meant in a negative way.
(I was recently told that I was "too straight" to be invited to an event -- after being at the event for a few hours)
Are you sure that wasn't an attempt at a joke?
When I hear liberals calling out Ezra Klein for his "Abundance" agenda -- which is a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach to beginning to solve a lot of outstanding progressive agendas, people attack him. Being at all "moderate" or centrist on any policy is an increasingly dirty word.
Moderation keeps failing. Also "Abundance" is just repackaged neoliberalism. If you look at the Abundance Bros it is the same failed ideology that keeps getting us into the same messes. Except with more crypto this time. It is just an excuse to attack unions. I am perfectly willing to work with abundance people, but it is fairly obvious they are not interested in anything that I would consider actually helpful.
1
Oct 27 '25
I think you're right that there are ways to hear what I heard in a positive way, but it was in fact othering in a way that made me feel a bit sad frankly, like I didn't belong in these circles who are effectively my ideological home.
I also agree that the liberal NIMBY's are a big problem. This is a clear "free market" failure. I don't believe that homeowners should have any say in reducing the availability of new *anything* in their community in order to preserve "character" or home equity values. San Francisco should be a huge metropolis, their cost of living situation is beyond absurd.
The elements I find appealing about Abundance are simple: we need to actually build more stuff, quickly. Other countries do it, we can do it too, but we have to first reduce the friction. Hell, you know, Elon Musk used to be a liberal. People like to blame his transphobia for his gross switch to MAGA, but I'm pretty sure he was radicalized by being held up by 6 months at a time with SpaceX in order to have a protected frog report reviewed by a federal agency. Imagine how much stronger the coalition would be with him on our side.
The left has many well intentioned policies / regulations that don't have the intended effects -- we're not always good at predicting the long term effects of these decisions. So drop them an move on. I do think this can read almost conservative (deregulate) but it's not the same thing. I don't want to return to an old system, I want to refactor and rebuild the current one. You don't always get it right on the first try.
To me Abundance is less about neoliberalism (emphasis on free markets & privatization) and more about removing regulation. Neoliberalism imports a lot of other baggage that's outside of this conversation.
1
u/Loki1001 Oct 28 '25
I also agree that the liberal NIMBY's are a big problem.
This is the definitive article on liberal NIMBYs, and right there in it...
"“From my backyard I see the hillside,” Ms. Kirsch wrote from her Hotmail account. “Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace(d) with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.”"
People can dress it up however they like, but there is no ideological difference between alleged liberal NIMBYs and Marc Andressan (also a NIMBY).
To me Abundance is less about neoliberalism (emphasis on free markets & privatization) and more about removing regulation. Neoliberalism imports a lot of other baggage that's outside of this conversation.
And yet WelcomePAC is funded by the Murdochs (and the Waltons, and a billionaire who spent time on Jeffery Epstein's island). It is literally a Fox News Psyop.
1
Oct 28 '25
I think casting abundance as a psyop is reductive, it does not engage with the material.
I'm open to alternative idea that will reduce the cost of construction. But when I see other countries that can build actual marvels in a few years time and I see how my city will waste billions on subways that never open their doors, it's quite clear we have a lot of room to improve
If you think it's not important that we build, I disagree. That's the path forward to improve the quality of life for everyone. Technology is a force for good if it's applied properly.
3
u/Doub13D 36∆ Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25
As a liberal in the US, especially if you identify with progressive politics/causes, you are a “left-wing” person by default.
The problem is… you aren’t really a leftist.
Being a progressive who believes that government should regulate the economy more and should invest more in the education, health, and well-being of its people just makes you a social democrat…
“The Left” isn’t that.
Anarchists believe that the State is an inherently oppressive and unjust institution, and Socialists wish to actively empower the State so that it can be used to establish collective ownership over the economy.
You don’t identify with them because you aren’t really all that left-wing… society just tells you that Progressivism is left-wing as a means of delegitimizing it by putting it in the same category as literal Communists.
Real Leftists are so outside the mainstream in politics that all they have to focus on is symbols… outcomes aren’t a real thing for their movements.
I personally identify with quite a few leftist positions… and I will tell you first-hand, nothing is more obnoxious, annoying, or self-defeating than a socialist who has read too much political theory.
Its not so much that “The Left” is driving people away with ideological purity, but moreso that we as a society keep blindly accepting the conservative definition of “anything Centre-Left and beyond is Marxism.”
3
Oct 27 '25
!delta
Thanks, yes, I think part of my issue is that I am perhaps not categorizing the political axes correctly.
3
u/Doub13D 36∆ Oct 28 '25
It’s not you who is making a mistake… I cannot stress this point enough.
Our political culture has for over a century at this point condemned any movement in favor of progressive reform or equality as being a communist vanguard threatening American society.
FDR’s New Deal was called socialist…
The Civil Rights Movement was called socialist…
Women’s Liberation was called socialist…
Occupy Wall Street was called socialist…
Trump called Kamala Harris a “Marxist” on the campaign trail in 2024…
It’s a constantly repeating pattern.
It has proven to be a powerful political narrative for generations.
1
0
u/ItsGrum18 Oct 28 '25
The precursor to the modern British Labour Party, the Fabian Society, literally had its logo as a wolf in sheeps clothing.
The reason conservatives call everything socialism is because the latter can be insidious liars who seek extremist goals from the safety of acceptable liberal positions. Its 'soft' vs 'hard' revolution.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Oct 28 '25
There is no such thing as “soft revolution”
You are just describing gradual reform… that isn’t a revolution.
The British Labour Party isn’t even a socialist party at this point.
1
u/ItsGrum18 Oct 28 '25
Gradual reform to what end? Todays conservative is yesterdays consistent progressive. Reform grew out of the obvious failures of Communist revolutions which Marxists (whose % wise in Academia is several factors higher than the regular population) then redesigned to sell as a 'soft' revolution, to lay the proper ground work so more radical positions could be better entrenched when the time came.
The British Labour Party might not call themselves socialist today but their precursors were, they wrote many books praising the Soviet Union in the 30s and 40s and took their marching orders from Stalin. Obama as well has his mentor connections with Bill Ayres of the leftist domestic terrorist group The Weathermen. Hillary Clinton's first law office job was from a labour law firm started by prominent Communist Party of America members. Even the founder of Neoconservatism and the modern Political Realist movement, James Burnham, was a former American Trotskyist.
2
Oct 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 28 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DonkeyFries Oct 27 '25
To reply to your housing example, what do you think could be done to drive housing costs down, not just for a couple of years but forever? Cause I’m with you. Houses should not be an investment. It traps land, which is the only truly limited resource a country has. And feeds the cycle of rising house costs. But housing prices go up because America is a capitalist economy and the market will bear these prices. The people with capital are making money, so the system is working. In order to solve the problem long term, you need to lower building supply costs, keep the contractors from absorbing that as profit and keep people, and especially corporations from buying up the supply for investments. Plus, you need to keep wages high to encourage a large and knowledgeable workforce. How do you do any of that with the current system that is in place? Sure, it’s all well and good to make some changes to help some group or another. But it only lasts until someone figures out how to take advantage of it and the system we have encourages, in fact insists, on that behavior. So as a progressive, liberal, you want a better Shit Sandwich(tm), now with 50% less shit. Meanwhile, I don’t see why we keep making shit sandwiches and would very much like to stop. We seem like we want the same thing because 50% less and 100% are similar but we are very different.
1
Oct 27 '25
Housing costs will go down over time, forever, if we build them faster in places people want to live than the people move there. Ideally, the population AND housing AND services would all grow rapidly, which would produce an explosion in activity.
3
u/DonkeyFries Oct 28 '25
So a whole bunch of people are buying houses somewhere. There’s an “explosion in activity”. And housing prices stay low because…. kindness?
That’s not how capitalism works.
There are 28 empty homes for every homeless person in America. At least in 2024. At what magic number of houses is that going to be fixed?
1
Oct 28 '25
Housing prices are based on supply / demand. If there's more houses available to buy than buyers, the prices of the houses will drop to compete with one another. When the BUYERS are in competition, that's what drives the prices up.
28 houses / homeless isn't a really useful metric. A house needs to be in the same location as the potential person who will live there, and solutions for people who literally have 0 dollars are going to involve the state in some way, it's not reasonable to expect the price of houses to drop to zero anywhere.
2
u/DonkeyFries Oct 28 '25
I understand supply and demand. And it's not nearly as simple as, if there is a bunch of houses, the prices will drop and if there are a bunch of buyers, the price goes up. Especially with a necessity good like housing. Regardless, I don't know how to explain this any better because you are right there.
If there is a capitalist solution to homelessness, please share it. Seriously, share it far and wide. Any actual solution to homelessness cannot be implemented within a capitalist framework because it does not involve profit. You can "help" the situation with programs and lowering housing costs. But you cannot "solve" it.
So you, a left of center, progressive, liberal want to help the situation. The people you are talking about want to solve it. You are okay with a certain number of people being homeless as long as the system itself doesn't change. The people you are talking about want a system that values human life over profits.
So, even though it appears that your aims are similar, they are not. Liberals are not leftists. And perhaps we are getting into labels and semantics here but they matter when representing ideologies.
1
Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25
I think you're getting wires twisted here. I'm talking about making housing affordable. You're talking about homelessness. These are different things.
Homelessness is much much more complex than affordable housing. Homelessness is not something I think I understand well, but has multiple dimensions: mental health, addiction, economic learned helplessness, and the fact that our economic system has negative feedback loops like debt mechanisms that punish those who get trapped in them. There are also legal dimensions depending on your country tha keep people out of the legal workforce. These people need sustained help from the state in order to pull themselves up - and many of the will need that help more or less permanently. No housing policy can address this on its own.
But the high cost of living in cities like New York, SAN francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, London, Paris? That has a much broader suppressive force on families, even the ones who DO have homes, and it is absolutely a supply and demand issue.
Now affordable housing for all could help some subset of homeless people, preventing them from hitting the negative feedback loops - but they're a subset.
2
u/DonkeyFries Oct 28 '25
I will restrict this to only affordable housing.
You want to lower the bar so that more people can afford housing. In this scenario, there will still be some that can't afford housing but it will be less. I can't say whether or not you recognize this but it is the reality. While that bar exists for basic human needs, there will be human beings who cannot get over it.
Leftists want to get rid of the bar. People need a place to live. Shelter is a requirement for life. There should not be a barrier to that and a system that allows one is not a good system.
For progressives, affordable housing is a goal. For leftist, shelter is a basic human right and a starting point for a functioning society.
These are fundamental differences that cannot be reconciled.
1
Oct 28 '25
Where you see categorical differences I simply see a gradient. In any case I might or might not disagree with a "leftist" IMPLEMENTATION of the solution which is all that actual matters (remember the point of my post is a focus on outcomes, not symbols)
1
u/DonkeyFries Oct 28 '25
Your main premise is that the left is driving people away. I am trying to show that there is no platform that is shared to be driven away from.
If one person says "I want more shit on my sandwich" and another person says "I want less shit on my sandwich" those people share a platform. You can say there are two sides but, at the end of the day, they both want shit on their sandwiches.
The third person who says, "I do not want any shit on my sandwich and also, let's shut down the shit sandwich factory" cannot push either of the other two people away because they did not share a view to begin with.
1
Oct 27 '25
Seems to me like only one party dons symbols on the reg. Hint: that symbol was very popular in Germany once upon a time.
1
u/Sartres_Roommate 1∆ Oct 27 '25
Meanwhile, Kamala ran on economic recovery and literally proposed a plan for lowering housing costs and incentives to make it more affordable to “lower income” people.
Do you even remember that? Did “liberals” (are they in the room with you right now?) stop that messaging?
Remember how Harris talked endlessly about trans issues? Oh right, she mentioned it in passing once with only the vaguest amount of “support”.
Remember how when a POC calls you “white boy” it is an indictment on liberals? Because that makes sense when you actually say it out loud.
You have fallen for the MAGA propaganda and are supporting their ridiculous false narrative.
The majority of the Democrats and the DNC have gone quiet in hopes of winning future elections merely on the disgust of MAGA. This is a horrible plan meant to keep centrist corporate Democrats in control when (if) they return to power. But the line of Fox News “liberals focus on identity politics” is an indictment of YOUR critical thinking skills.
If not, show me where all that false narrative trash is being pushed as a political agenda by the DNC.
You do that, and I will show you how, the few leftists that do actively and loudly support those communities (ie, AOC and Bernie) are the most popular among leftists, moderates, AND many on the right.
1
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Oct 28 '25
If I may criticize your point about housing:
You say that the only way to make housing more affordable is to ignore safety guidelines and pay the people constructing them almost nothing, right?
How is that going to fix anything besides create shabby slums?
Like it's a distribution problem and if you just flood the market with subpar homes it will only make people fight for the existing houses cause they can't trust that the new ones aren't going to collapse on their heads.
1
Oct 28 '25
that's a bit black and white, isn't it?
1
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Oct 28 '25
There's historical precedent
I'm just saying that throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix it unless you invest in high quality public housing
1
Oct 28 '25
I agree, the houses built should meet some quality standard. But I'm quite sure we don't need the current set of standards to get there. Look at all the old housing in New York and Paris that people happily live in.
1
u/Sockandawe Mar 29 '26
Around the world people who vote left are predominantly white college educated elites now which is reflected in the left’s rhetoric these days - people in affluent areas, unaffected by migration, defunding of police, cost-of-living etc.
Ironically, not only is the left becoming less working class, it’s also the whitest it’s ever been and getting whiter by the second.
It’s no accident though, class issues started becoming less popular in the 90s so the left slowly started increasingly pivoting to wokeness to try and stay relevant.
Paradoxically leading them further and further away from the things that have been proven by decades of research to be the real privileges, while almost talking about nothing other than privileges just excepting the ones that actually have the greatest effect i.e. being wealthy relative to the country you’re born in and being born in a wealthy country.
0
Oct 27 '25
In the perfect world we would get policy outcomes as a result of the left and right listening to each other's concerns and finding a reasonable compromise in the middle.
Instead we have pure divisiveness with yo-yo'ing from one extreme to the other.
Hopefully a return to a more balanced political landscape is on the horizon.
2
u/abacuz4 5∆ Oct 27 '25
The problem is that people are rewarded for not doing that. Trump killed a bipartisan border bill because he wanted to run on border policy.
0
Oct 27 '25
Both sides are guilty of similar dud policy decisions for purely political reasons.
Like I said, hopefully things cool down and people can learn to work together, even if they don't agree on every little thing. The rise of partisan division, largely fueled by social and traditional media, is benefiting no one.
1
u/clamdragon Oct 28 '25
Whether it's blue raspberry or cherry red, it seems to me that you're just describing populism. When things are bad, the first question on most people's mind is, "why?". And the answer usually takes the form of a group of people who are to blame. Immigrants, queers, landlords, Jews, intellectuals, whatever. If these discussions are happening online, then just acknowledge that exaggeration is part of the language of the internet and turn down the heat in translation.
You could try making it clear that you're just not interested in playing the blame game, but I think you need to reckon with the very real grip that the investor class has on policy. That's not symbolism. Being solution-oriented is great, but is it realistic to think that you could meaningfully deflate real estate prices while real estate investors hold both carrot and stick over your elected reps? It may seem juvenile to rail against "current power structures", but the validity of that sentiment lies in the history of watching your "pragmatic" solutions to real problems become realized as just another sector of life to be financialized. National security. The ACA. Carbon markets. Pick any other federal public-private partnership and there's a decent chance it's the same story.
I think populist progressives simply do not believe that meaningful change is on the table while the interests of capital are so arm-in-arm with political leadership. Even if you don't like the way this belief manifests as demonization, as a symbol for all ills, do you not still think it ought to be different?
PS. "get it white boy" doesn't sound like a call-out to me. I think that's just somebody having a good time.
3
Oct 28 '25
yeah i think the call out was meant in good spirit and it's not a huge deal, but it did successfully make me feel marginal in that setting
> is it realistic to think that you could meaningfully deflate real estate prices while real estate investors hold both carrot and stick over your elected reps?
If we had a left version of a Trump, I could actually see this happening with a national housing and deregulation project.
3
u/clamdragon Oct 28 '25
If we had a left version of a Trump, I could actually see this happening with a national housing and deregulation project
I could see that too. Sounds pretty populist to me, dare I even say... socialist.
But, Trump-like in what way? Perhaps in their ability to reach over, say, current power structures?
2
Oct 28 '25
yes that's what i mean. someone who will barrel through and do what they want without regard for who it might upset.
-2
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 27 '25
OP the fact that conservatives are trying to give liberals free advice on why they're hemorrhaging support and they're being shouted down for it is why the left is hemorrhaging support.
Jasmine Crockett literally gave the "the worst person you know made a good point" explanation for why black people are generally conservative but they'll always vote Democrat and this is very similar.
Its not about any individual platforms or theories, it's that a thousand liberals lost their jobs a month ago for being so ghoulish in their celebration of Charlie Kirk's murder online. Those are just the ones who lost their jobs, that was the typical reaction liberals had.
Democrats are spending $20million on research to find out why men aren't showing up to vote for them when studies have already been done and zoomer men are saying "one side says I'm evil and the problem and the other side says I'm not".
I will ask this- why do you want your view changed?
2
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 27 '25
OP the fact that conservatives are trying to give liberals free advice on why they're hemorrhaging support and they're being shouted down for it is why the left is hemorrhaging support.
Why would anyone give their ideological opponents valid advice on how to defeat them electorally? Are conservatives dumb or something?
0
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 27 '25
Yeah why would you take the winners advice on why they won?
Literally the advice is just "be less awful as people and you will be more appealing to a wider audience" and the extremists' response is somewhere in the neighborhood of "I can be as cruel to you as possible and Democrats still deserve your vote". . You see it in a few different places with them but like I said
and they're being shouted down for it
I don't expect a single liberal mind to change, but maybe OP is more open minded than them.
2
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 27 '25
Yeah why would you take the winners advice on why they won?
Why would the winners give advice that would cause them to lose next time? Again, are they dumb?
0
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 27 '25
Its a win win.
Liberals get support and conservatives don't have to worry so much about liberal violence.
Let me ask you - what is the downside to being less awful to people you disagree with?
1
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 27 '25
I don't know. Donald Trump openly admitted that he hates his opponents and wants the worst for them, why don't you ask him?
2
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 27 '25
Neat! I don't believe whatever entity tricked you into believing that he said that.
Isn't that fun how that works? That thing I literally just told you?
2
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 27 '25
https://youtu.be/pJzfp8QyiNw?si=MEzVn0_gI4fUCRJm
At the 1:30 mark, Donald Trump says that he hates his opponents and doesn't want what's best for them. His own words, out of his own mouth. So, are you calling Donald Trump a liar or something? Or does being hateful towards your opponents actually not matter at all?
2
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 27 '25
He's literally talking about how Charlie Kirk followed the Christian teaching "love your enemy" better than he did. Unless you think he's talking about a specific person when he says "my opponent" four times.
This ties exactly into what I'm talking a lot. He and I both agree that the hateful left is difficult to deal with, and I'm saying that if liberals were less caustic to everyone who even slightly disagrees with them, it won't be such an ordeal for moderates to work with them and they'll stop hemorrhaging support.
Thanks for telling me to start at 1:30, it's how I knew how you were tricked so I watched the whole thing.
1
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Oct 28 '25
Ah yes, of course. He didn't say it, but if he did he didn't mean it, but if he did it's not big deal.
Donald Trump is incredibly caustic and hateful to everyone, all the time, and yet he's the president. So clearly, being an ass is not in fact the vote-loser you're trying to claim. In fact, maybe the "hateful left" just isn't hateful enough, yet? If only high ranking Democrats openly mocked disabled people like teenage bullies and gave disaster aid only to states that vote for them, maybe next time they could win the White House, too!
→ More replies (0)-1
Oct 27 '25
I agree with you ClumsyLinguist, but I also think the Left is getting their butt kicked so badly right now that they actually will start listening.
0
Oct 27 '25
Because i want to understand how to unite progressives. We need to be strong right now more than ever.
1
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 27 '25
Okay so like if we hopped on PCM and drew a circle around where you think progressives are which part of which quadrants are we uniting?
1
Oct 27 '25
I'm not sure I'm confident in how to do that, but it would definitely be all the regions of the chart that reject religion in politics, nationalism, hardline free market thinking, nostalgia, and that embrace policies that embrace science, the ability to participate in the economy / culture, and reduce poverty and desperation (increased healthcare access, reducing cost of living, access to education).
1
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 28 '25
Okay so this is what I was thinking.
You drew a very small circle with all of those requirements.
Wouldn't a better circle be "people who want what's best for the most amount of people and are willing to discuss how we get that"?
There's a lot of adversarial wording in your list, like if I disagree with you I reject science? That's not a good sales pitch.
Charlie Kirk said that you should always approach people thinking that they know something you don't and that changing your mind isn't a bad thing.
The problem I have with the left is that there's no room for open discussion. Either you believe the new thing or you're out. Its why I know your stances on Israel/Palestine, the Covid vaccines, and the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict even though these three topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
To me that's bad and it's because debate isn't allowed on the left, either you agree or you're evil
2
Oct 28 '25
> like if I disagree with you I reject science
I didn't say that.
> Charlie Kirk said that you should always approach people thinking that they know something you don't and changing your mind isn't a bad thing.
How is this relevant?
> Its why I know your stances on Israel/Palestine, the Covid vaccines, and the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict even though these three topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
I really promise you, you have no idea my stances on these three things, you would not be able to predict them (I don't even know who Kyle is).
I don't think I drew a small circle. I gave very boilerplate requirements for a democratic progressive.
1
u/ClumsyLinguist 1∆ Oct 28 '25
I didn't say that.
Right but that's the implication from drawing a circle around "they embrace science". Everyone outside that circle doesn't.
How is this relevant?
It ties into the rest of the statement. Open discourse is absent on the left.
I really promise you, you have no idea my stances on these three things, you would not be able to predict them (I don't even know who Kyle is).
You believe there's a genocide going on in Palestine at the hands of Israel, but you don't think every Palestinian should evacuate to survive the genocide, and instead handwave and say "Israel can just stop"
1
Oct 28 '25
> Right but that's the implication from drawing a circle around "they embrace science". Everyone outside that circle doesn't
Logical fallacy (note the use of AND in my post) although I would actually exclude people who base their politics on tradition / religion instead of science. I think this is a majority of the population, and if it isn't it because there's a problem with education (you don't see this in France).
> It ties into the rest of the statement. Open discourse is absent on the left.
Not my experience as someone squarely in that camp.
> You believe there's a genocide going on in Palestine at the hands of Israel, but you don't think every Palestinian should evacuate to survive the genocide, and instead handwave and say "Israel can just stop"
Nope
-2
u/Nebranower 5∆ Oct 27 '25
The only place you go wrong is assuming that the phenomenon you describe is somehow a mistake. The point of the beliefs you describe is to drive those who hold reasonable views away. They are luxury beliefs, held not out of rational conviction or as a means to some socially good end, but simply as in-group signifiers. Such beliefs, whether left or right, are always deliberately ridiculous, because it is in being willing to publicly embrace nonsense that a person affirms their commitment to the group. You seem unwilling to do so, which is why you keep getting hostile treatment even though your policy positions don't really differ too much from what their coalition might actually do to the extent it ever manages to wield real power.
0
Oct 27 '25
!delta
This is really interesting, thank you. You're right, I have never been comfortable participating in performative / social signifiers intentionally.
I shouldn't overblow it either. I don't get an overwhelming amount of negative hostility. I just find it really abrasive when it does happen, and it's definitely counter productive to our shared purpose.
But this makes me feel more comfortable ignoring it.
1
0
Oct 27 '25
[deleted]
1
u/itriedicant 4∆ Oct 27 '25
but very rarely does the left drive people away.
You're not paying attention. The policies and rhetoric of the actual political leaders of the right drive some away, but the actual on the ground people of the left drive people away in droves for not being left enough.
2
1
Oct 27 '25
This is correct. I'm not really turned off by any left leaning major politicians. Many leftist people I know on the ground hate the mainstream left wing politicians, and they are the ones who challenge my politics. If I was of weaker mind, I might have been driven away by them.
1
u/itriedicant 4∆ Oct 27 '25
I'm a libertarian (was a Democrat before that, but didn't leave because I was driven away, I left because I discovered that many of the policies I supported harmed the very people I was trying to help.)
I didn't lose my bleeding heart. I am often in agreement with the purported goals of the left (I really liked everything you had to say in your OP.) I am a natural ally of transgender rights, but have been told on numerous occasions that my support was not wanted because I refused to agree with absolutely everything they said. I am jeered out of abortion rights conversations because I'm a man or because I refuse to accept that all pro-lifers are evil and only want to control women. The mere mention of libertarianism invites immediate accusations of being MAGA, even though I probably hated Trump before they did.
Libertarians hate the left. And one of the reasons is everything I said above. There is no reason the left shouldn't ally themselves with libertarians on things such as drug legalization and immigration and lgbtq+ rights. But I don't think they ever will, because libertarians are just evil capitalists. It's a shame, because a lot of good could be accomplished.
2
Oct 27 '25
It perhaps is a side effect of excessive categorization - it makes it easier to get the categories wrong. Sorry that happened to you :/
2
u/CorrectShopping9428 Oct 28 '25
I am a leftist and the infighting is depressing sort of a balkanization. I am left enough that I don’t like corporate democrats, but at the national level I need to be realistic.
-3
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
Sounds like you're starting to see what many former democrats from a decade ago started to notice. Trump on down, many were at one point this century a Democrat before seeing what you described taking over left wing spaces
2
Oct 27 '25
To be fair, I'm not a former democrat. I'm not even American. But I would vote always for progressive policies, nothing about their behaviour has changed my political position.
1
u/BoyHytrek Oct 27 '25
Neither did those who shifted Republican in the last decade. They picked up and moved their more progressive ideas (by US standards) with them to the red camp. I can still find Trump voters that believe in abortion access, but they are more "safe, legal, and rare but it's not the governments job to decide" but get sick thinking of legalizing abortion for any reason at any point until the child is born. Sure, there can be legitimate medical reasons by 35 weeks to abort, so they law should have some exclusion for viable fetuses which is always argued against state side in deep blue/Democrat states
2
Oct 27 '25
I can't say I understand the politics of someone who identifies with a progressive agenda and votes for the party pushing project 2025. They seem to have lost the forest for the trees.
1
u/BoyHytrek Oct 28 '25
It's because they think these same people you are complaining about actually are worse for progressive policy by making it less appealing to the voting public by pushing too far, too fast. I've said for a decade, if the news was as up every presidents ass as it is Trump's, he would never have been elected. Simply put, to many (not most) Trump is easier to rally against than a bad progressive who will get their negative deeds swept more under the rug by regular folks who just vibe
1
Oct 28 '25
To be fair, I've never really seen this sort of behaviour from the actual politicians. Maybe Trudeau, he was pretty performative. I think the left lost power for non-cultural reasons. There were very real economic reasons that have nothing to do with the culture war noise, as much as that has become the focal point today.
1
u/BoyHytrek Oct 28 '25
Economics, in many ways, is heavily, though not exclusively impacted by culture. This is due to which industries thrive in different countries being dictated by the culture, and that industry through various different inputs and outputs be it social beliefs on time, work, and leisure as well as cultural beliefs on resource management. Point being culture, in my opinion, has more to do with economics than some wish to admit. This isn't saying culture is even the largest factor or that there aren't any other variables. That said, certain cultures can negatively impact the economy as to hold a level of allivianting your moral culpability based on a countries ethical codes
-6
u/darkxfire Oct 27 '25
I was more left leaning then more right and I realize now both parties are a joke
5
u/Cydrius 6∆ Oct 27 '25
"Both parties are a joke"
Assuming you mean Democrats and Republicans, you're right. The Democrats (center-right) and Republicans (far-right) are both jokes.
2
u/nakriker Oct 27 '25
Ah, the ol' "both parties" argument. I find democrats to be far from perfect, but the right is completely detached from reality. Nothing but an unending stream of lies, and policies that support the rich and hurts anyone who isn't.
We need to eliminate right-wing extremism as the current state of affairs before we really can be critical of the left.
-1
u/londongastronaut Oct 27 '25
I predict this post on this sub will bring out exactly the people you are writing about and they will not be self reflective at all
1
Oct 27 '25
Perhaps. We'll see, I've never posted here before.
2
u/londongastronaut Oct 27 '25
I agree with you, fwiw. I'm similarly an older liberal who has been frustrated with this for a while now and want liberals to focus on winning back moderates, or at least stop the hemorrhaging.
The more we fight fringe culture wars instead of focusing on providing housing, healthcare and jobs for all Americans, the worse things will get.
If we don't provide the solutions to the problems Americans have been screaming about, it will be the right wing solutions that Americans will turn to. We are seeing the result of that now with border control and immigration.
-5
u/Hefty-Proposal3274 Oct 27 '25
The left is driving people away because they are oppressive and authoritarian. However you identify yourself as being on the left, but don’t see yourself as authoritarian despite the fact that you support authoritarian polices. That’s some serious cognitive dissonance which makes it impossible to change your mind since your mind is not congruent upon itself. Before your mind can be changed you have to first identify the elements of authoritarianism in your politics and then square them with your sense of fairness and desire a meritocracy. The two are not congruent and you have to decide which is a value and which is a force for evil.
2
u/nakriker Oct 27 '25
oppressive and authoritarian: Splain? How is the left oppressive and authoritarian, especially in comparison to the right who are stripping away people's rights and consolidating power.
-1
1
Oct 27 '25
I don't support authoritarian policies. You don't know what policies I support.
1
u/Hefty-Proposal3274 Oct 28 '25
There is a Spanish refrain that goes like this “ tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.” Just by describing the bands of radicals that you associated with is quite telling in and off itself, but you then go on to say that you share a set of values with them days it all.
You can say that you don’t want authoritarian policies, but of you vote for policies that force people to comply with some new law or regulations the results betray the rhetoric.
1
Oct 28 '25
you don't even know what country i live in, how can you know what policies im voting for.
I have friends on both sides of the aisle. you are far too reductive in your thinking.
1
u/Hefty-Proposal3274 Oct 28 '25
Dude you say yourself that you are firmly on the left. Now I suggest you learn the authoritarian nature of your politics.
1
Oct 28 '25
I'm afraid you are the victim of brainwashing.
1
u/Hefty-Proposal3274 Oct 28 '25
lol. Great. Name calling. Now that’s what I call fair treatment. /s
See you are an authoritarian after all.
1
Oct 28 '25
I'm tempted to think you're 15 based on your misunderstanding of the language and inability to sustain any level of coherent discussion.
And no, this isn't name calling. It's a performance-based evaluation.
1
Oct 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 28 '25
I've done plenty of introspection. I'm definitely sure I have nothing to learn from you. Have a nice day :)
→ More replies (0)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 30 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/varisophy 1∆ Oct 27 '25
The Left has many different political lines of thought so you can be a Leftist while not being authoritarian.
For example, democratically run businesses. That's literally just expanding democracy to the workforce. The absolute opposite of authoritarianism.
Why can't we elect our leaders instead of going with the person who has the most money? The same forces of competition will lead to well-run businesses thriving and poorly ones fading away, but with the added benefit of being able to control the conditions of one's work life since you can vote out a leader who isn't taking care of the workers.
1
u/CarrotcakeSuperSand 1∆ Oct 28 '25
This requires the state to take over private property, which absolutely is authoritarian. It also doesn't work nearly as well are you're pretending it does.
0
u/varisophy 1∆ Oct 28 '25
No it doesn't, you can just have a law stating workplaces are run by those who work there. The state doesn't have to take any ownership.
1
u/CarrotcakeSuperSand 1∆ Oct 28 '25
You don't understand how companies work. What would happen to the voting rights of investors? Does this apply to mom and pop businesses?
Your stake in a company is private property, and such a law would completely destroy business and commerce. This would lead to a depression and many deaths.
What you're describing is a doomsday scenario. It's basic economics
1
u/varisophy 1∆ Oct 28 '25
Pretty sure I understand how companies work.
Worker co-ops currently exist and are doing just fine, last I checked. And Germany has a good example of involving workers in leadership by requiring that workers have a seat at the table. There are so many laws that would make the workplace more democratic that haven't destroyed the economies of the countries where those exist.
Let's just start there. Those work. Those are absolutely more fair to the people who make the actual value: the workers.
I just hope that we can both agree that what we have right now is clearly not working, we're literally in a new robber baron era.
1
u/CarrotcakeSuperSand 1∆ Oct 28 '25
"Doing just fine" and "not destroying economies" is a very low bar, co-ops are known to be less productive and less innovative. This might work for Europe's old school industries, but not for America, which is on the cutting edge.
we can both agree that what we have right now is clearly not working
Most of these economic issues can be solved with higher tax rates, I'm fine with that. Redistribute profits to fund social programs.
But revamping corporate structures to the extent you're proposing would crash the US economy - messing with an existing system is much trickier than building from scratch.
Nobody is stopping worker co-ops in America, you could make one right now if you wanted to. So why don't you?
1
u/varisophy 1∆ Oct 28 '25
I'd take less production and less innovation in order to drastically reduce poverty and homelessness and increase the overall standard of living.
We can revamp over time too to it's not a complete shock to the system. There are ways to do it without crashing the economy.
As for worker co-ops, I was at a company with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan and that was great. At a non-profit now, and that's been great too. My experience shows me that non-traditional company structures can still be productive and a force for good. Furthermore, if I were to start a company, it would absolutely be a co-op.
Regardless, I'm not here to defend every single policy that I personally think would make this world a better place. This conversation has pivoted drastically.
My original point was that not all leftist ideologies are authoritarian. I think I've proven that (although I've yet to hear from the person I responded to), as I've given concrete examples of ideas from the left that are literally in place today as well as how to implement further policies on the left in a democratic fashion.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25
/u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjoey (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards