#that's the fault of lefTiSm!!!

[papirouge]

some of yall need to calm down with calling "socialism" "leftism" or "wokism" ANYTHING that your remotely dislike

[rotzaprachim]

a wild flavor of tumblr user is a certain kind of white American self id’d leftist or commie who reblogs and posts things about I just think all liberals and centrists should DIE (*guillotine* meme) and then posts things needing to be nicer to demographics that vote 80% Republican and are very systemically involved in the structural and practical oppression of people of color and the whole US hegemony like brooo I get having a seriously messy relationship with your own cultural background but who are you talking about? Guillotining everyone at mawmaw’s thanksgiving?

[transrevolutions]

it's not okay to blame civilians for the actions of their government. unless they are members of the military, police force, or government itself, it is not their fault what their leaders do. no direct democratic countries exist in the present day. when national powers go to war or suppress human rights, the civilians are not at fault.

[all-doggirls-go-to-heaven-2]

Hey btw if you post the "the reason men are getting more and more alt-right is 'leftism' and 'feminism'"I am blocking you. I do not care if we were mutuals. I have no respect for people that think we need to coddle men and our main fault as a movement is not coddling men.

[batboyblog]

I just saw someone call "vote blue people" fascists today on this godforsaken website. They also rambled about Jews Zionists a little too much and repeated some blatant blood libel points so like, I shouldn't take anything they say seriously but.

Is that what we've come to? People voting for Democrats, the party that wants to destroy the world and its people the least... Fascists? Is there no winning with these damn people? What the hell is considered acceptable to them anymore?

hm, I mean I think there are a number of different types of these people. I think there are people who grew up in Republican households and took on all the anti-Democrat baggage and their leftism is rebellion against mommy and daddy but not very deep.

I think there are people influenced by the silly idea that the worse things get the better it is for the Communist Revolution thats totally about to happen any day now we swear, Karl Marx the once and future King will rise from his sleep to lead Britain in its hour of greatest need or whatever.

I think the media are really failing, because they love an idea of "balance" but like when it comes to say Republican criminality there isn't balance? there's no Democratic counter point? so they have to under cover Republican scandal and also lean into an unthinking narrative that whatever Republicans do is somehow Democrats fault? in some way "why didn't Democrats stop them?" well because thats not how it works? why did Republicans do it in the first place? why wasn't the public aware thats what Republicans would do if elected?

I think the antisemitism is a big factor this time around as you mentioned the raving about Zionists or whatever, putting all issues on the back burner to somehow "punish" Democrats for the fact a war broke out in a foreign country on the other side of the world when a Democrat happened to President.

which leads me to the final part, propaganda. When Trump was President he recognized Israel's annexation of two areas, East Jerusalem which has long been talked about as the site for a Palestinian capital, and the Golan Heights a legal part of Syria. This is the first time an American President (or any world leader) had recognized land occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War as a PART of Israel, rather than occupied. Trump went further and put forward a plan drafted by Israel and right wing American Israel hawks which would have reduced Palestine to a bunch of little islands of sovereignty cut off from each other by land annexed to Israel. A Palestine of bridges and tunnels. And Netanyahu claimed, and I believe him, that Trump said he could go ahead and annex that land even if the Palestinians said no to the deal (which they did)

do you remember the big protests then? no? none? you don't recall any of this? strange... because there are big bot networks boosting content about this conflict, making sure it makes it into your timeline, making sure you tie it to somehow be Democrats fault and that its the most important thing in the world and showing how upset you are by it is the single most important thing imaginable. All day, every day.

As far as Palestine goes, there are two options. The Party that believes in a two state answer, and the party that doesn't. Trump already signed off on annexation once, when he's back in office, now, after October 7th? ooof. Any one who's serious and not cooked knows which is the better choice.

[autistichalsin]

Honestly, the most reliable way to find out whether someone is really an actual leftist or just likes the aesthetic is by looking at their stances on the human rights of prisoners.

Do you actually think prisoners are still people, or do you think they forfeited their basic rights by being convicted of a crime (and please note the distinction between the terms "convicted of a crime" and "committed a crime," because these are not synonymous). Do you get angry at prisoners having little things that make their lives more tolerable, like books and TVs, OR are you a sadist who growls that they're "there to be punished"? Do you think prisons have an obligation to care for the health of prisoners, seeing as they have no choice but to be there, or do you grumble that "I don't get my healthcare paid for" (in America naturally) and thus think it's the prisoners' fault and not the lack of universal healthcare? Do you see that forcing prisoners to fight wildfires for cents an hour is slavery, or do you think slavery is an acceptable punishment? Do you think it's only basic common sense to offer pathways for prisoners to get a GED during their sentences- which is proven, time and again with empirical evidence, to reduce recidivism rates- or do you think it's not fair to pay for educating "lowlife criminals"? Do you think the death penalty is the ultimate infringement on human rights even in the best circumstances, and a tool for miscarriage of justice at worst given how many innocent people have been convicted, or does your desire to enjoy the suffering of the "right people" make you support it? Do you understand that prison systems are a tool for enforcing structural oppression, particularly towards people of color, poor people, queer people, and the mentally ill, or do you think that's just an acceptable cost for making sure the bad guys get punished? Do you care that the bad guys actually DON'T get punished seeing as how wealthy white rapists almost universally go free, or do you just enjoy the comfort of your imagined scenario too much to let go of it?

Prisons are the real true litmus test for self-proclaimed leftism because the standards are so low that they're in hell and most still can't even match those

[shoujoboy-restart]

I (cis male) feel a bit alienated by the narrative of "young are disenfranchised and that's why the far-right is able to recruit them" not because it's wrong or it's not a true statement by most part but the thing is: the disenfranchisement is mostly caused by right wing and conservative narratives within our culture, and left wingers aren't responsible for creating it but they haven't been able to provide too decent of a remedy for it and are too focused on solely scolding cis het men for having been convinced by these right wing narratives into going against their self interest.

In reality, right wingers convince people the cause the disenfranchisement and male abandonent is actually at fault of progressive ideals within society.

For example the whole "male loneliness" debacle, yeah, cis het men are struggling a lot with loneliness, isolation and lack of connections, but that is mostly platonic and also with their family and relatives, however red pillers are able to convince men that Acshually™ they should focus solely on romantic and sexual connections with women ("no you are not gay or bisexual, that's leftist propaganda made gender theory marxist post modernism so stop being a fag") and that in fact this is the fault of feminism and leftism because women now don't have to rely on random men to function within a misogynistic society where a woman can't get a education or a house without a husband's permission.

Yes, leftism needs to abandon the whole shitting on men and the whole quirky misandry shit if they want to convince young males to just not be horrible people.

However, comma, in addition. Realistically speaking, even if you were doing the most mollycoddling towards men and became a an actual pick-me, no, many of these dudes wouldn't become normal because misogynistic and sexist ideologies would still be in effect, profitable and socially dominant. So yeah throw out the "kill all men" mentality but also don't be fucking mollycoddling mysoginy and sexism mindsets "cuz different opinions".

[thoughtaddictand]

Pro-Palestinians are at fault for the rise of the far right in Europe

Pro-Palestinians, in particular the protests on their behalf, are at fault for the strong turnout for the right-wing populist parties in the European Parliament elections. They have put the obnoxiousness of muslim immigrants and far leftists on full display.

The average person here in Europe, who form the silent majority, doesn't give two shits about the Palitards. They support Israel, if not every single of its policies, at least its existence. They also realize that Palitards are a violent, non-peaceful people, against whom you HAVE to do something. Otherwise they'll harm good Israelis.

Now imagine being confronted with pro-Palestinian stupidity day after day: Them doing things like blocking highways, harassing Jewish worshippers and Jewish exhibitions, highjacking holidays and other festivities (like pride), and just TRYING to flaunt their obnoxiousness everywhere. You'd be justifiably pissed off, right?

Now imagine there's the "European People's Party Group", which is far-right, which is anti-leftism by nature, and also anti-Islam. It must sound so appealing to people sick of hearing about Palestine, don't you think?

[based-bobcat]

It's interesting that Ollie does most of the things Jason thinks Bruce doesn't do.

>Killing criminals, specifically avenging someone

As absolutely shit as Cry for Justice was, the fact that Ollie killed Prometheus for maiming Roy and killing Lian was absolutely in-character and Bruce wouldn't have done that. Bruce was dead at the time, but you bet your ass he would've tried to bring Ollie in after.

>Thinking about the little guy

A core aspect of Ollie's character is his leftism, I mean, his stance on looking out for the little guy. JLU isn't the only time he rejected joining the league because it was too far removed from the streets. He's more likely to protect people who loot supermarkets during a crisis than the owner who tries to shoo them out (This happened in 52). As much as bad writers would like you to think otherwise, Bruce would NOT condone rioting or looting of any kind.

>Looser parenting/Showing affection more.

Look, Ollie was a notoriously bad parent back in the day. But we can say that his hands-off approach did help Roy more than Bruce's my way or the highway type parenting with Jason. Both Roy and Jason had the same issues when they were kids (probably one of the reasons they get along so well, eh?), but at least Roy was allowed to go with the Titans. Being with kids his age probably helped immensely with his growth. And while Batman has trouble admitting he loves his Made Found family*, even too himself, Ollie doesn't have that problem. He tells his kids he loves them all the time and the amount of bear hugs he gives them cannot be counted on 4 hands.

Lest we forget that Bruce's way of ebbing Jason's anger issues was either to ignore it or telling him to his face that taking him in was a mistake.

Also Jason liking Ollie over Bruce is funny, because Bruce would fucking HATE it.

-*I know current writers, Tom the fanfic writer Taylor, like to write Bruce as someone who tells his wards he loves them every single opportunity he gets, but i'm sorry but that's just not him. Bruce is a severely emotionally stunted man and has trouble telling anyone he loves him. One might argue that this Alfred's fault, since he kept his distance emotionally until it was to late. a mistake he recognized and vowed to not make again with Dick, but that's a post for a different day.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

Why did we (general, non-specific "we") decide that the liberals are the real enemy of leftism, and that the left should make common cause with the far right to destroy them? it just seems like a huge strategic error, and i was hoping that we all got that shit out of our system by now after seeing that it always leads to worse outcomes

Because when you're in an echo chamber, the enemy becomes the people slightly different to you and you forget that outside are people who deeply hate your guts and that democracy requires convincing the most amount of people to support your causes, not subdividing into the most ideologically pure factions.

e.g. The people complaining that I tagged a post with "israel hamas conflict" because they've spent most of their time on Tumblr with people who tag it "gaza genocide". Meanwhile, outside of Tumblr, more than half the country sees it as a war where we need to support Israel unconditionally and any civilian casualties are Hamas' fault and necessary sacrifices.

[marmorada]

I am so fucking sick of people acting like widespread, corrosive flaws in leftism like misogyny and antisemitism and white savior complexes are just transient not-real-left things like "growing pains", "remnants of a conservative upbringing," and "misplaced righteousness". If it's bad it's magically not leftist and if it comes to the point where evidence is public and incontrovertible the most you can admit is that well when it's us it's a wittle itty baby problem that's really not that bad.

We don't live in a fucking Marvel movie, political factions aren't fucking superhero teams. You don't get to say oh this person is evil so they were NEVER a TRUE member of the Avengers, Steve, this is HYDRA'S fault... There is no magical, spiritual, emotional, or otherwise, component to being part of a political faction. People don't get disqualified and minimized and quietly shuffled away if you don't like them to save your precious self-image. This isn't a YA book or a children's cartoon.

Clean. Up. Your. Movements.

[bluejays-boys]

remember not to be antisemitic.

I have seen countless pro-Palestine 'leftists' saying antisemitic stuff and completely ignoring that what they are saying is clearly bigoted. we have to remember that this genocide is not the fault of Israeli citizens, nor can anyone make such broad, antisemitic statements such as 'Jews are at fault'. this brings us full-circle into antisemitism.

instead, we have to recognise that the Israeli armed forces, Israeli government officials and a large chunk of US elected officials are at fault for this tragic massacre of the Palestinian peoples. it is not 'Jews' or 'Christians', it is specific individuals. these people's faith is not what cause this genocide. yes, there is islamophobia in this genocide. but we cannot be antisemitic in return.

leftism is about equality for all. freedom for all. we cannot discriminate when talking about the genocide. when we say 'free Palestine', we do not mean 'kill Israel'. citizens are not to blame.

many zionists seem to think that when people discuss the liberation of Palestine, it is harm to the Jewish faith. it should not be. the liberation of Palestine is not a direct attack on Jews; we want an end to the genocide, and to liberate occupied lands. the Palestinian peoples deserve to live just like everybody else.

[rigginsstreet]

Infuriates me actually that people really look at the billy/karen situation and basically label billy as jailbait. Like “oh he doesn’t look like a teenager he’s so attractive of course Karen was gonna go for that she’s so sad and lonely in her marriage she just wants some dick it’s not her fault ☹️”

Like if you EVER said that about a male in regards to a teenage girl you’d be rightfully berated but somehow when it’s a dude - particularly a dude you don’t like and think is worthy of eternal punishment - suddenly that rhetoric is okay suddenly the leftism leaves your bodies I don’t know what the fuck goes on in your heads and I’m better for it

[drbased]

A typical healthy consciousness wants two things: firstly, it wants to be viewed as a complete whole, separate from outside influence and fully responsible for everything it does; secondly, it wants the freedom to be able to completely dismiss certain behaviours as not part of the whole under the guise of 'I don't know what came over me!' 'I just lost control' 'I don't know why I did that' etc.

We see this in other people all the time: we all have a friend who insists their relationship problems are never their fault, or a relative who swiftly changes the subject when you bring up their wine-drinking habit. Everyone wants the safety net: I am always me, untouchable and knowable only to me, apart from when I do things that are totally unknowable to me. You see this phenomenon play out in the response to statistics: advertisement is a bajillion-dollar industry which shows that people do respond (like sheeple, if you will) to stimulus and buy the things they're advertised. But every single person, myself included, secretly thinks of themselves as a pure individual, who makes rational decisions and is unaffected by pathetic things such as pictures and words. But if someone has a subconscious personal ulterior motive for consuming certain products, say as the result of an addiction, that motivation stays unknown to them - and it's evident that they very much want it that way.

These two facets are as contradictory as they are complimentary, as are many aspects of this convoluted tangle of concepts we call the 'self'. It is these two facets that make things like advertising work - people have to arrogantly believe that they're responsible for every single one of their behaviours - but the moment you point this out to them and that their spending habits are damaging to them and they should take responsibility for their actions, suddenly you're the bad guy, because you've broken this very important psychological illusion. In fact, one might say that this is the primary illusion that makes up the self as we know it: too much awareness and the person is trapped forever in an existential terror, unable to make any decision because the weight of responsibility is too much; and too little awareness means you may as well be an animal driven by pure instinct. So the psyche constantly walks a tightrope between 'I am me and always accountable for my actions' and 'but I'm not accountable for this action because I don't like what it would say about me if I was'.

A huge social faux pas that leftism enacts is that it removes the safety net of 'I'm not accountable for this action/thought/belief' and instead cuts right through this fundamental illusion of the psyche. Historically, your average apolitical person could be safe in the knowledge that because they've categorised themselves as not racist, any racist jokes they say are not a product of racism, but rather lighthearted fun. They want to be judged on the 'content of their character' and they want the content of their character to be what they've decided, and the only thing they want to be held accountable for. But when you point out that making racist jokes is something that someone of their particular background does, and is typically done to achieve a certain affect, therefore their behaviour fits into a statistical pattern that says something about themselves from an external perspective - something about themselves that they don't like the sound of - they, uhh, really don't like you doing that. No one does, because you've smashed through the illusion that they're making conscious choices from their isolated brain; what you've done is you've observed their precious individuality and put it into a standardised pattern of behaviour. You've, in essence, told them who they are.

And you're probably right: patterns of behaviour, both within one person's lifetime and across populations, tell us a lot more about a person, their intentions and reasoning, than what they will ever want to admit about themselves. Unfortunately, in the case of politics, you can't really get past this hurdle. You have to make the awkward leap of telling people who they are, and pray and hope for the best that the discomfort they feel leads them to try to change their behaviour. But I believe that this is why you can't really change people in a one-on-one argument. You try telling someone something as simple and basic as this: 'the reason why you have a sudden mysterious urge to go the corner shop every tuesday at 7pm is because your husband brings his friend Bill over, and you really can't stand Bill' - they're going to immediately brush you off, and next tuesday at 7pm they'll be musing once again 'I always fancy going on a walk then, I don't know why!' and you'll want to bang your head against the wall in frustration.

On the more extreme end, it's very common for addicts to come out the other side and realise that they never healed their relationship with their parents, for example; but if you saw that connection at the height of their addiction, would you be able to tell them that? Oh, hell no: in fact, you might even say that this illusion is exactly what enables addiction so effectively within the human mind. The famous adage 'I can stop whenever I want' comes to mind - the person has to believe that their choices are a conscious reflection of their pure, untouched individual personhood. And this spans the entire gamut of human experience, from the cigarette-on-your-work-break to your political leanings, as influenced by your relative levels of privilege.

So, does this mean we're doomed to never change people, politically speaking? Well, I don't really know. On the one hand, society at large has seemingly managed to grasp the concept of behaviours as a result of inherent privilege, not conscious choice. But there's much evidence to suggest a huge, monumental backlash; the right-wing, who have historically clung to this idea that they have this safety net of merely believing they're good people, have now pivoted into a near-neurotic response to this cultural shift. Now, being good needs to be reflected in doing good; merely meaning good doesn't carry so much social capital - and this is something the right-wing completely lost their minds about, to the point where things such as wearing a mask in the pandemic were 'politicised'. The right-wing have always leaned heavily into the nebulous concepts of 'freedom' and 'individuality', essentially signalling to this exact paradoxical illusion of the self: after all, freedom and individuality are concepts that do not and cannot make coherent sense, but are useful safety nets to ensure a perception of onesself as necessarily untouched by 'outside forces'.

Meanwhile, the politics of the mainstream left have been gradually distorted to pay lipservice to the idea of doing good through certain stock phrases, sharing on social media etc., but a comfortable space is being carved out for that same 'need' of plausible deniability within the self. 'Social justice' language that traditionally held the self accountable for unsavoury behaviours driven by forces other than 'conscious choice' has been gradually pivoting to achieve the exact opposite aim of what it was originally used for. The concept of privilege is being slapped on scapegoats, used to legitimise their demonisation - meanwhile those who have the exact same privilege are able to dodge criticism for 'being wholesome'/'being unproblematic' in some nebulous manner (usually by sticking to those stock phrases, following cultural norms/expectations and generally staying out of the limelight, especially if they're women).

Additionally, certain privileges have been given less political/moral weight than others, allowing for people to evade any and all accountability by nature of them belonging to certain oppressed groups - and having that negate their problematic behaviour as a member of an oppressor group. The most nebulous and meaningless privileges have been fast and widely adopted, especially as they allow the person to completely avoid any accusations of 'classic x group behaviour'. In fact, huge swathes of 'classic x group behaviour' are being rapidly done away with.

The core fabric of the leftist argument, the one thing that held a mirror to society and said 'what you actually do says things about you whether you like it or not' are being rapidly unravelled. Is this a sign that this paradox of the psyche is so fundamental to the formation and perserverance of the self that any attempts to shatter the illusion are quickly patched up and explained away? Is this illusion truly necessary for a healthy psyche, or just a typical one? Can we live in a world where everyone humbly admits to the kind of things they would admit in therapy, but on a daily basis? Is this version of the psyche merely a stage in collective human development, and can we grow beyond this? And, more importantly, can we do so in time?

[hasdrubal-gisco]

the part about the EU elections that people with green/center-left faves simply don’t understand is that people simply don’t want to vote against their self interest. i haven't talked about this much on here, but i really urge people to let go of the view politics through a "something is Left, therefore it follows that it is Good" and focus on the individual policy proposals and their outcomes. i maintain that understanding economics as a series of mediated conflicts between classes with opposing interests is the best way to understand what's going on - and solutions should be routed through this understanding as well. the fact that what has since its inception been an economic movement has been co-opted by a branch of academia that amounts to historical fiction (i will continue to refer to this as Left, leftism, etc. so as to deliberately divorce it from marxism. it admittedly also has little to do with the jacobin club of the national assembly where the L-R distinction comes from but nobody thinks about this anyway (rip)) is not my fault, but i will not cede this ground to them.

locally, the pirate party released a very embarrassing "we failed to explain the merits of our platform to voters" message regarding their relative underperformance. it's easier to believe a failure of messaging than a success in messaging an unappealing platform. the same was said by an unsuccessful presidential candidate about adopting the euro last year. do not be like this !

mucho texto warning, discussion on specific things that affected the election outcome:

the war in ukraine – putting this first because to me this is the primary fault-line between dissident (regardless of where on the L-R spectrum they aesthetically place themselves) and mainstream political movements. the consequences of the nonsensical EU sanction packages and aid deals has been completely absent from the conversation. “maybe we should put fewer ukrainians in a meat grinder” has for the past two years been a taboo stance which gets a politician derided as a far right/far left russian lickspittle. institutional commitment to the war negatively impacts people economically first directly (increase in food, energy expenses) as well as indirectly (opportunity cost, increased capital expenditure, lower market confidence - translates into increased job insecurity, suppression of wages for employees), and many simply disagree that this is a worthwhile tradeoff. whether this a majority/minority position depends country to country, but it is a very strong issue capable of changing voting patterns. another factor is the view that it as an american-russian proxy war, and europe being roped in is an erosion of both EU and national sovereignty. anyone with eyes can see ukraine simply will not win this war. if you think any month now the trident will fly over moscow you’re simply delusional. creditors like the EIB and ERBD (which are definitely not three germans, and three americans in a trench coats respectively) will spend the next 40 years smacking their lips

economic policy – europe is long overdue for a reevaluation of what left-right means. the main reason the center-left collapsed (in western europe in the ‘00s, in eastern europe in the ‘10s) is they are simply no longer parties representing a continuation of the historical fight for worker self-empowerment. simple as. some amount of this can be blamed on the american NGO industrial complex (more on this later), but most of it is just institutional rot. in every “social democratic party” there have been defectors to the “people’s democratic movement” (far right), as well as communist parties because it’s the only place where you can have actual pro-social policies. people have completely given up their right to fight for economic self-interest in exchange for adopted social struggles (again - more on this upcoming). many a “far-right” party has campaigned on lessening state surveillance, introducing the right to recall appointed political functionaries like judges, police, more public oversight over budgetary discretion, more transparency in regional governance. all hallmark traits of fascism, i suppose. nobody is interested in trillion-euro green policies that create a new tax for registering your petrol-vehicle while enriching german polycrystalline silicon manufacturers. we want to split the atom and we want it split now !

sovereignty – post-ww2, western europe fell wholly under the american sphere of influence, to an extent on par with russian influence in the warsaw pact. it is very gauche to acknowledge out loud how much influence NGOs and thinktanks based in the US have on european politics, source: look at what’s going on in georgia (country, sakartvelo). a great number of people have been elevated through conventional politicking to positions of power they cannot handle, and their responsibilities get delegated out to unelected consultancies which gain access to relatively impactful matrices of statecraft. entire social concepts are being imported and dumped onto people, and “authentic grassroots advocacy groups” are ready to receive this garbage and pretend this has always been the center of conversation here. more and more people are recognizing it and deciding to elevate sovereigntists in revolt, and it is a good thing. macron has had terrible domestic politics (except for raising retirement age), but his recent diplomatic grandstanding has been good to see. anglo-german cultural displacement of france on the european scene has been a disaster, as i have and will continue to insist on.

immigration – this one is for sure going to be popular on the “please be niceys” website. to pre-qualify, i am a resident alien in the country i live and work in, many of you are also resident aliens wherever you may be, some are intra-eu foreigners (i am not). at some point, we have to open the space for conversation enough to ask the question “is losing a doctor and gaining a bus driver overall good ?”. this point will probably go over better with europeans because they know what i mean, the american mind cannot comprehend brain-drain because it is the one place where it does not happen. americans are not finishing medical school to go move to nicaragua to make that moneyyy. america is gaining a lot of bus drivers but they’re not losing highly educated and specialized workers (except a couple chemical engineers going out to gulf states to do white collar work in oil refineries. wish that was me). it blows my mind how you can understand the concept of strike-breaking being bad, and simultaneously advocate for the import for a cheap labor force from abroad. it is doing you no favors, and it is doing the country where people come from no favors. the only people who benefit from this are those with enough capital to arbitrage this by depressing your wages or outright replacing you. you can posture and talk about inherent racism of european states all you want, but it is plainly obvious to anyone that non-european immigrants are treated by the law with a very soft hand even in cases of violent crime precisely to not seem racist. if someone’s culture has lax views on whether rape is actually bad, i personally am very comfortable saying that culture should be suppressed with the threat of force. lol ! being tolerant of indiscriminant violent crime is simply not a heckin’ wholesome leftist attitude. either you believe they are capable of not being rapists or you believe they are incapable of that. which is it ? to be clear, eastern europeans are heavily overrepresented in robbery and burglary in western europe – this is a bad thing and they should not do it, and i think it would be reasonable to have stricter controls even for them. as someone who has never robbed, burgled, killed, or raped, these policies are simply not a threat to me. sorry if robbers and burglars and murderers and rapists feel discriminated against, quite frankly they should be glad we don't do corporal punishment. you need to be sober and recognize people are coming here because they see a system easy to take advantage of, and they will be upset if it is denied to them, and you have to be comfortable making people upset. there is no argument in favor of unrestricted immigration other than "please be niceys," do not project your self-hate on a society you have to share with people who are normal.

youth – genuinely has anyone else been actively reaching out to the 35-25 demographic by offering a vision of a better future ? has any mainstream center-left or center-right party ever done any engagement that didn't amount to demanding loyalty because "that's how things are" ? do not say greens, because the vision greens offer simply is not better. sorry you will never sell someone on "please please lower your standards harder" when standards have already been decreasing anyway.

covid – this is a minor point in this round of election, but it does have to do with the overall vibe-shift. people who were skeptical of the rules imposed during covid, as well as the very rapid release of vaccinations were publicly shamed and derided as far-right, and told they deserved to not have access to any other forms of healthcare etc. establishment institutions paid a very high price in terms of their legitimacy, and now article after article is coming out walking back a lot of what was said, and admitting many decisions were made randomly and in the heat of the moment.

war in gaza – probably fairly low on most people's list of priorities, again, this war has a very predictable outcome to people looking from afar who don't care who is going to take over keren shalom border crossing or whatever. other than higher casualty count, it is simply not that different from 2014 and 2008. big deal for europe's large muslim population, along with getting exemptions from mandatory education for their daughters.

---------------------------

closing remarks; of course, nothing will happen, because nothing ever does. any political momentum can and must be squandered on infighting, and we can and will continue this managed decline for another few decades. europe is past its prime, and we're living on retirement being paid by america and china. to some this is good, but i'm just not that kinda guy, i see the missed opportunity and it bothers me.

the grounds for worker self-direction has never been moral, it has been practical. you should advocate for your own interests, and the productive labor force is the section of the population most to gain, as it carries the brunt of the burden. simple as. this thing where you have to advocate on behalf of some more-oppressed other is moralistic masturbation, and it's easy because unlike standing up for yourself, advocating for someone else asks very little of you (source: look around you)

EDIT 1: clearly this was not long enough. the moment an anti-immigration left-coded party emerges, it will win (as is the case in denmark for example). if it is possible to be a "socdem" and not advocate for social democracy, but it is not possible to be a "socdem" and advocate immigration restriction - it is reasonable to conclude "socdem" is defined as belief in more migration, rather than anything "soc" or "dem"

EDIT 2: re: covid, not that anyone has read them or cares but the declassified and unredacted contracts between the EU and pfizer/moderna/AZ are insane. really only means something to someone who already reads regulations regarding pharma but people should be barred from public service for signing some of the shit that was passed

EDIT 3: any aesthetic references to hitler & friends should be taken with the same seriousness as modern communist parties using the hammer and sickle, or government buildings flying lgbtpoc+ flags - not at all, it is aesthetic posturing, and has no practical impact. this isn't power rangers, let's be serious

[tirsynni]

I think it's funny, in a horrifying way, how so many people have the tendency of circling around from extreme leftism to extreme right. Like, it's less of a spectrum and more of a circle.

Terf nonsense is similar to this. They argued so fiercely for female empowerment and if you listen to their arguments, it's conservative bullshit in pretty language.

A lot of this so-called left bullshit is actually just extreme right ideology painted in leftist language. It's part of why I hate how intent matters less than language use in many left/liberal circles. They ignore meaning and tell you that you are a bigot and a monster and whatever based specifically on your language choice. Psyops pick up on this. Right-wing extremists take it to their pulpits. So much of the current transphobia is using leftist language to defend not only transphobia but racism.

A major component of the Extreme Right movement is using the emphasis on individualism to attack many minority communities. In the end, it's about billionaires protecting their billionaire communities by convincing poorer communities to attack each other by promoting individualism. It's highly effective. "Fuck people who require food stamps or disability. Oh, you need it? Well, your situation is different. You wouldn't be on it if you didn't need to be. You're an individual. Those people are lazy and just don't want to work." Dismiss how these programs assist communities by focusing on individualism.

We are actively seeing these things in left circles. The language is different but the intent is the same. The breakdown in social etiquette. The defense in not cooperating with and building communities. The right to attack and harm others. The current language is couched in mental health language or "fuck the boomers" language.

"I don't see why we have to follow their rules! That's stupid. It's a new generation and I'm not going to follow tradition for the sake of it. Okay, now what do I do in this situation which used to have an answer found in common social etiquette?"

"I can't assist with this community activity! I have social anxiety. If you try to force me to do it, you're the bad person!"

"I have this type of neurological disorder, so it's not my fault if I yell insults at the person! They just need to be accepting and realizing that some people have disorders which make them be assholes."

This isn't to say that these issues don't exist. Social anxiety is a thing! Neurological disorders which impair certain social skills and create impulsivity issues are a thing! The problem becomes when the emphasis is on the individual rights over recognizing individual responsibilities and recognizing that the individual is still a part of the community.

We go from "I, as an individual, paid off my student loans, so no one should have student loan forgiveness" and how that attitude harms our community to "I refuse to help and support my communities in any way because I have a neurological disorder, and due to my rights as an individual, people need to adjust for me 100% with me not needing to provide anything in return." In leftist circles, we are taught to hate the former and promote the latter, dissolving individual responsibility to the community.

Communities need to recognize individual needs. Yes. Absolutely. Survival of the fittest for humankind means those who work well within our communities survive. That is what it means for humans, not how well an individual can live alone. There's a quote about how civilization first formed when humans within a community helped an individual survive who otherwise would not have survived without their care and support. In turn, individuals need to recognize that they are parts of a community, and they need to do what they can to support that community, too. That differs from person to person, day by day. That means voting. That means recognizing the need for social etiquette. That means if your disorder causes you to lose your temper and lash out that you own up to it, apologize for it, and work on getting a handle on it. Maybe you succeed, maybe you don't. The point is recognizing your role in the community and how to assist how you can.

Those in power have learned that turning communities against each other is effective. Look how the feminism movement has been divided! Look how the LGBT+ community has been divided! How many elections have been lost to people like Trump because people decided that the main Democratic nominee wasn't pure enough and voted for a third party? It works.

Sometimes, being a part of a community is going "I know I have social anxiety, but I'm at least going to smile and greet this stranger before bolting away." Sometimes it's working to manage your mental health instead of shrugging and saying that everyone will just have to put up with it. It's voting even when you don't particularly like the candidate but you know that the other guy is WORSE. There are many components to it, and it's figuring out what works and what doesn't.

Being involved in a community involves work, and you can't expect other people in a community to support you when you have the means to support them back and refuse to do so.