r/bestof • u/paxinfernum • 24d ago
/u/_antique_cakery_ explains why some activists prefer to bully vulnerable grassroots organizations rather than fight actual systemic problems.
/r/Longreads/comments/1wnob3o/a_western_mass_lesbian_bar_required_kn95_masks/pbh7f9q/?context=3150
u/DecidedSloth 24d ago
Balkanization. This is why the left always loses. Because we canabalize each other.
20
u/tanstaafl90 24d ago
How does your issue help my issue, which is the most important issue, and needs to be priority over your issue, or at least included as a big part of your small issue... hey, where you going?
22
u/Do_Not_Go_In_There 23d ago
I once heard it described as "the left needs a reason not to vote for someone and they won't, the right need a reason to vote for someone and they will" and that's always stuck with me, especially when I see things like this.
12
u/TokeThatIn 23d ago
Yep. I work at a small environmental nonprofit and during the peak of performative grandstanding (circa 2023) I had co workers that were so insufferable that I started to understand where the outrage at “wokeness” came from. And then we got Trump 2.0 and unbridled fascism. Thanks again guys, that really panned out well! /s
6
2
0
0
u/Pro_Extent 23d ago
Except with Israel. Curiously, people leftists don't seem to follow purity tests when it comes to Israel.
Someone pointed that out to me recently and I can't stop seeing it.
112
u/tupe12 24d ago
It’s easier to go after the little guys then the big leagues
27
u/bduddy 24d ago edited 23d ago
Ding ding ding. This is why Tumblr and old Twitter were how they were. You can't solve systemic inequality on your own, but you sure can bully someone else off the Internet for being a minority the wrong way, and if you don't really think about it that can almost feel like you're accomplishing something
66
u/HeloRising 24d ago
There's three types of people who become leftists.
The first type genuinely wants to try and make the world a better place.
The second type wants absolution from the sin of having to exist in this world.
The third type desperately wants to be someone's manager/boss but lacks the social skills necessary to do that for a living.
I'm part of several leftist orgs and we've had to deal with issues like this.
There are people who use COVID/immunocompromised people to bully organizations but they're fairly rare all things considered. They tend to be the kind of people who have A Thing and they center their Thing as part of every single discussion or exchange that happens and they get very upset if they feel their Thing isn't being addressed properly.
In fairness, that's sometimes necessary. When you have a decision making body that's made up entirely of straight, white men nominally representing what is supposed to be a diverse org it's really worth taking some time and asking some hard questions about that org's structure.
That said, when you're having conversations about who can store tabling supplies before an event, that's maybe not a productive time to discuss the role of queer people in the vetting process.
All in all, I think these kinds of people are important. Sure, they can be annoying and sometimes it's worth asking if they're fighting for their Thing or if they're more intent on just scoring a win for themselves. But orgs and groups in general do benefit from that nagging voice saying "We could be better."
But instead of working to improve any of these things these things, these sorts of people seem to spend all their efforts on bullying small grass roots organisations run by their peers.
It's "fight where you stand." If you talk to people who do this, they do support things like making masking at doctors' offices mandatory or wider use of air purifiers in public spaces. But they're an individual and they don't have the ability to push for change on that level so they focus on where they can make a difference - in their community.
It's also the idea that if you're part of an org that's claiming it wants to fight to make a better world for people and you just flat ignore a particular group because it's too inconvenient to address their needs, that's sending a message that that group isn't valuable enough to be considered.
21
u/ShredderIV 23d ago
There are people who use COVID/immunocompromised people to bully organizations but they're fairly rare all things considered. They tend to be the kind of people who have A Thing and they center their Thing as part of every single discussion or exchange that happens and they get very upset if they feel their Thing isn't being addressed properly.
It's weaponized advocacy. Advocacy is great, but you have to realize when it isn't productive.
Advocating for ramps and wheelchair access when you are in a wheelchair is great.
Coming down on a mom and pop business in a tiny rented space for having a step up and no wheelchair access might just show completely unrealistic expectations. It actually hurts your cause more than it helps it, because people who care a little start to care less about your cause.
4
u/JohnnyEnzyme 24d ago
The second type wants absolution from the sin of having to exist in this world.
Say what? Are you equating that form of 'leftism' to the core of Western Religion..?
55
u/HeloRising 24d ago
It's more "white guilt."
It's people who recognize how screwed up the world around them is and they recognize that they benefit in some ways from it and they feel guilty about that because they feel, on some level, personally responsible for what's happening.
They get involved in activism primarily to make themselves feel better and they do not react well if you point that out to them.
A lot of the more cringe and performative elements of activism come from people like this.
5
u/JohnnyEnzyme 24d ago
Interesting. Thanks for the reply.
So, something like a reaction to the self-realisation of personal and class privilege, I take it.
And yet, apart from the variety you mention, I could see others who pursue leftist goals as a means of correcting the overall situation, not just because of internal feelings that they don't fully understand.
I feel like I heavily lean this way, combining your pts 1 & 2, essentially.
30
u/HeloRising 24d ago
So, something like a reaction to the self-realisation of personal and class privilege, I take it.
Essentially. They take the fact that they're a part of a privileged class as a sort of mark of bad character and they pursue activism as a way to either make themselves feel better or show other people that they're good people "in spite" of being part of the privileged class.
And yet, apart from the variety you mention, I could see others who pursue leftist goals as a means of correcting the overall situation, not just because of internal feelings that they don't fully understand.
Those are the type one people I mentioned.
It's inelegant and there's nothing stopping people from being a little of two or even all three. Hell I'd be lying if I said I had no feelings of guilt about being a fairly privileged member of a fairly privileged class.
The thing that helps is to recognize that you personally didn't make the world the way it is and while you are benefiting from systems that harm people, there's only a limited amount you can do to stop that and you do have the capacity to turn some of that towards helping people.
A basic example, I used to work at a place where we had meetings once or twice a week. It's a fairly common dynamic in meetings where there's a majority of men to kind of ignore or sideline women who participate. I made a point to, if I saw a woman who was participating in the meeting get cut off and ignored by other people, to speak up and say "Hey, so-and-so was talking and I'd like to hear what she has to say" even if that meant cutting off a male member of staff who was speaking.
I could get away with doing that because I'm a man. Nobody was going to call me "bitchy" or roll their eyes. And after doing it a few times it set the tempo for these meetings where people were actively more conscious of doing that and it actually stopped happening.
You can make very small pushes if you have some degree of privilege to make things better for people who don't have that same level of privilege.
2
u/GamerKey 23d ago
The thing that helps is to recognize that you personally didn't make the world the way it is
There's a fairly poignant song by the german punk band "Die Ärzte" which boils down to:
"It's not your fault that the world is the way it is, but it would be your faul if it stayed that way."
21
u/amaranth1977 24d ago
A lot of people in activism in the US are non-religious but never actually deconstructed their fundamental beliefs about the world. They just changed the vocabulary.
2
u/JohnnyEnzyme 24d ago
Makes too much sense. Also, a Q--
If they're non-religious, then how do they typically address the existential fears that most humans are party to? Again through activism, somehow..?
3
u/_adanedhel_ 23d ago
This is like asking whether you can be moral without religion. Both of which are questions built on deeply faulty premises.
1
u/JohnnyEnzyme 23d ago edited 23d ago
No, you've misunderstood me. Morality has nothing to do with it.
I'm talking about baser fears that arguably come from an overload of awareness, which describes a critical part of our sapiens wiring, compared to earlier versions.
2
u/spaniel_rage 23d ago
There's a certain self loathing at the heart of much of progressivism, that blames Western imperialism/ capitalism for all the evil in the world.
2
0
u/Erenito 24d ago
Can I ask what's up with lgbts and masks? When I first read the article I just assumed it was like a masquerade ball every night, like an anonymity thing.
11
u/HeloRising 24d ago
I mean there isn't really a "thing" there. If anything, LGBTQ+ people are just likely to be more conscientious and aware of other people's needs, hence the insistence on masking at events and awareness for people who are immunocompromised.
When you're part of a marginalized group, you tend to be a little bit more aware of the needs of other groups of people who get ignored a lot of the time.
39
u/rooftopgoblin 24d ago
part of the problem is there really is no mechanism to push these people out, because they use weaponized language and even though they are one step above a homeless person ranting about demons on the subway because of the way the left has treated marginalized groups as being always right or at least valid, you can't just tell them to fuck off and go away
18
u/twelvis 24d ago
There are. It's just that most left-leaning people tend to not be authoritarian. Hence, they don't like "being the bad guy" and making tough decisions or enforcing rules. Those people also don't particularly like leadership roles to begin with.
Most of the time SHTF, there is some sort of procedural rule to discipline or ban someone. But if you have soft leadership, you'll let the crazies run rampant, which will push away more level-headed people. It's over once someone who is authoritarian is in charge and has no qualms about abusing the rules to silence dissent.
On an individual level, the best option is to simply not engage. Everything you say can will be used against you.
14
u/rooftopgoblin 24d ago
you can't let the crazies run rampant at all. Left movements absolutely need the normies and do not need the train screamers
7
u/ptoki 24d ago
I would phrase it differently:
We let stupid people to drive things. Stupid people are influencing the way things are too much and smart people are yielding because "you need to accommodate others". That is a race to the bottom because nobody wants to draw a line where something is unreasonable as why you would not do this one small thing if you already do so much.
As a result already balanced and welcoming world becomes a joke.
Cut the stupid off, let only smart (but also compassionate) to drive things and the world will be a better place.
22
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
u/ptoki 23d ago
Dont get me wrong but let me express my thoughts about problem with tourettes "issue".
When there is zero negativity allowed for acting like you would have torettes then you can get imposters who either amplify the way it manifests or just simply pretend to be one. That will be a problem like any situation where a person may try to dominate situation with no regards for others.
That is a problem for significant amount of people and even if others are understanding it will require from them additional mental and empathical energy if the tourettes person would be showing intensive signs of that.
So some of them will assume malicious intentions or will feel that the person does this on their mental expense.
The point is: If I know you would curb the symptoms, or you would not have a reason to exaggerate then I would put the effort to accommodate you. But if you are free to do anything and just put load on me to deal with your problem then the empathy disappears not only for you but for all people like you mo matter if they pretend or not.
What I mean is: The potential or perceived pretenders may spoil the situation for everyone.
Now an honest question: how people with tourettes compensate this? What are ways to show and make sure the rest of the group feels that the person is trying to not be a burden in a social setting? How popular such accommodations are?
6
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ptoki 22d ago
I never saw that subreddit and I dont intend to see it.
It does not matter if fakers are rare. It matters if the person perceives them as fakers or have a sense of carrying all the burden in a social setting.
In todays world the phrase "what is in it for me" makes rounds (in relationship context - like marriage etc.) but it was always like that.
People may be altruistic but if they feel used and there is no reciprocity they will eventually quit and go away. With becoming bitter optionally but frequently.
That is natural and expected.
5
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ptoki 21d ago
Apologize when saying fuck to someone, politely tell that this may happen and warn they dont mean it. Make sure that if they say fuck you during discussion it is not about person etc.
Maybe telling people you would not argue and ask then to not talk about politics and such to avoid such situation too. You can do many things to make the situation less awkward or casting doubt on your intentions.
Normal human behavior not leaving any doubt about intentions.
If you have torettes and have zero empathy for the other person when your actions are offensive without explanation or apology then you are just an asshole.
15
u/lookyloolookingatyou 24d ago
The book (and the fundamental theory behind it) The Authoritarian Mindset gets brought up a lot on reddit mostly in regards to Christian Conservatism but until we recognize it's a problem all across the spectrum (even with centrists/moderates) it's not going to be fixed.
9
7
u/Studious_Gluteus 23d ago
We have demonstrated that in the colonial situation the colonized are confronted with themselves. They tend to use each other as a screen. Each prevents his neighbor from seeing the national enemy. And when exhausted after a sixteen-hour day of hard work the colonized (Algerian) subject collapses on his mat and a child on the other side of the canvas partition cries and prevents him from sleeping, it just so happens it’s a little Algerian. When he goes to beg for a little semolina or a little oil from the shopkeeper to whom he already owes several hundred francs and his request is turned down, he is overwhelmed by an immense hatred and desire to kill —and the shopkeeper happens to be an Algerian. When, after weeks of keeping a low profile, he finds himself cornered one day by the kaid (tax collector) demanding “his taxes,” he is not even allowed the opportunity to direct his hatred against the European administrator; before him stands the kaid who excites his hatred—and he happens to be an Algerian. Exposed to daily incitement to murder resulting from famine, eviction from his room for unpaid rent, a mother’s withered breast, children who are nothing but skin and bone, the closure of a worksite and the jobless who hang around the foreman like crows, the colonized subject comes to see his fellow man as a relentless enemy. If he stubs his bare feet on a large stone in his path it is a fellow countryman who has put it there, and the meager olives he was about to pick, here are X’s children who have eaten them during the night. Yes, during the colonial period in Algeria and elsewhere a lot of things can be committed for a few pounds of semolina. One can kill.
- Frantz Fanon: Wretched Of The Earth
8
u/Solesaver 23d ago
Ugh, too much real...
To provide another framing I haven't seen here. This is a manifestation of the anti-empathy, anti-intellectual, just on the "side" you're not used to seeing it on. Besides being anti-authoritarian, there's nothing about being progressive that makes you immune to all the exact same cognitive biases as MAGA. They're fighting the right fight, but they're not applying any semblance of critical thinking to their specific actions. They're upset, as they have every reason to be, but they're lashing out at a scapegoat, because they think it will make them feel better. It won't though, that scapegoat will be defeated and the cause of their unhappiness will remain.
Everybody who thinks of themselves as progressive needs to be vigilant for this kind of manipulation. Every attempt to rally you against a person or organization needs to be looked at with root cause analysis. Is person X in the wrong? Sure, let's say yes. Your anger against them is justified, and you don't have to be happy about what they did. With that out of the way, why did they do that? Does aiming your outrage at them fix anything? Are you being manipulated into division with people who could be your ally?
The right wing think tanks are well aware of the progressive tendency to purity test. They'll literally pay for advertisements that so and so progressive agrees with them in order to undercut them.
I was just reminded of this recent AOC + MAHA drama. Has she actually done anything questionable? No... She has associated with people who are going to feed her bad ideas and suddenly the left is fighting with themselves again. You think POLITICO was just innocently looking out for transparency and accountability into our politicians? Of course not. It wasn't an exposè. The meetings that they uncovered weren't some conspiratorial secret the AOC campaign was trying to hide. The article was a well aimed hit piece targeted directly at an audience who are known to make enemies out of allies at the slightest provocation, who have no semblance of consciousness outside of their immediate concerns.
3
u/mokomi 24d ago
I think this is more of a dissonance of someone grouping people together. Not knowing the difference between the 1%, .0001% and anyone else "above" them. I also see this with smart people all the time. Thinking the same answer applies to every question. In an effort of being "good" they failed to do good.
1
u/loupgarou21 23d ago
So, if you go and read through the linked thread, take the replies from the people claiming to be part of the queer community with a pretty hefty grain of salt. A lot of them are using language that isn't consistent with people actually in the queer community. Pretty sure there's a lot of this going on in that thread: https://imgur.com/aDIpqEZ
-31
u/FictionalContext 24d ago
The right wins because they tend to attract realists who understand the necessity of compromise to achieve their goals.
The left demands moral purity and will cannibalize themselves over a single issue. Like how idiot activists sat out the elections because Kamala wouldn't condemn Israel-- even though she did criticize Netanyahu and the Gaza crisis. So they helped elect the guy who wants to glass the strip and build a casino literally to teach the DNC a lesson.
35
u/Zomburai 24d ago
You're correct on the second paragraph.
The first paragraph is an insane amount of bonkers wrapped up in one short sentence. The right wins because, simply, almost nothing is a dealbreaker for them, and they always back the candidate. ("Leftists fall in love, rightists fall in line.") Their wild unwillingness compromise with each other, let alone the other side of the aisle, when it comes time to actually legislate and govern is the only reason we don't have a complete unilateral dictatorship right now.
-5
u/FictionalContext 24d ago
The right wins because, simply, almost nothing is a dealbreaker for them, and they always back the candidate
That's exactly what I said, just in a kinder way to the idiots who helped elect Trump because they couldn't do what Conservatives do and hold their nose and vote for the least bad option in their opinion. Instead, Kamala wasn't morally pure enough, so they didn't participate at all, giving Trump the win.
They were being idealists not realists, and now we have what we have because the rest of us have to live in the real world.
And that's far from the only example to that trend.
16
u/Maxrdt 24d ago
The right wins because they tend to attract realists who understand the necessity of compromise to achieve their goals.
That's a funny way to say "massive amounts of money and influence from established powers". The right wing doesn't have to organize anything when they're bankrolled by Oil and Ag and the MIC and private insurance.
0
u/FictionalContext 24d ago
We're talking about voter turnout and expectations. Got nothing to do with corporate superpacs. Y'all didn't vote. Trump got the same turnout. Kamala didn't. That's why we have Trump right now. Had she gotten Biden turnout, she would have won.
14
u/seeingreality7 24d ago
they tend to attract realists who understand the necessity of compromise to achieve their goals
What reality did you just wander in from, and is there a way back to it?
At least this is one instance where "username checks out" really does check out.
10
u/venomoushealer 24d ago
The right wins because they're ok steamrolling their own are no longer useful, their political objectives are "be in power" vs "improve the lives of citizens" and they're ok cheating to win. The left "demands" moral purity because anyone who doesn't fit into the right's cult-of-the-day has two options: the left or disengage (which includes "both sides", protest voters, etc.). So if you want to be engaged but don't fully align with the racists pedophiles in power, you've only got one real option.
5
u/R3cognizer 24d ago
The right doesn't compromise. They are unified because the one thing they all have in common is that none of them actually care about anyone but themselves. The left is different because we need to care about each other's policy goals in order to come together in sufficient numbers to form a common majority. That doesn't mean everyone on the left finds compromise to be easy though, unfortunately. Disagreements like this one have been the undoing of many liberal causes.
4
u/FictionalContext 24d ago
What the right understands that the left doesn't seem to is that federal politics is less about furthering your own cause and more about mitigating damage to it through shady career politicians.
So what if Kamala doesn't check the boxes? They had a choice between someone bad and someone disastrous, and they chose disastrous because they're is no such thing as sitting out. The world doesnt pause, and the parasites won't learn just because their base threw a useless tantrum.
2
u/R3cognizer 24d ago
federal politics is less about furthering your own cause and more about mitigating damage to it through shady career politicians.
I would argue that this is a huge problem on both sides of the political spectrum, but the big difference is that right-wing Republican voters just don't care about that as much as liberal voters on the left do, and that's exactly because the large majority of right-wing people are single-issue voters who only care about policies which benefit (or harm) them personally.
You're right that Kamala didn't check a lot of boxes, and I would agree that this is ultimately why a lot of swing voters stayed home and just didn't care to vote FOR her. But the point is that she (and especially Biden) were nominated because they were both centrist and moderate enough that nobody on the left was likely to vote AGAINST them. Their inability to overcome voter apathy was their undoing.
And of course Republicans were never going to vote for Kamala. They are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the upcoming midterms too, but a lot of them are going to stay home and not vote because they are finally starting to realize that the Republican party has changed from the one they used to trust to become the party of Trump, and Trump is not a conservative, but a fascist who doesn't give a shit about them.
1
u/FictionalContext 24d ago
I'm not sure that's true-- at least to the parallel you're drawing to the dems. You go on the Conservative sub, which is MAGA ground zero, and they're really hating on Trump and more broadly, the Republicans despite the bans and extreme astroturfing, but they're still all talking about voting. If there's one thing old conservatives do is vote, unlike young people who really need to be coaxed into it.
For the policies, I'd argue that the local level is the place to vote based on your morals. That's where an independent can really affect change, and your vote matters.
But generally people making it to the federal level, especially the highest office, are bound to be a weasels, simply because of the amount of establishment support it takes. That's the level you hold for nose and vote-- because Republicans sure will.
And conservatives have one more big advantage: Their platforms are slow to change. That's kinda their whole thing. Wheras liberals need a yearly update patch to stay pure. So most generally agree overall on social issues.
202
u/paxinfernum 24d ago
And FYI, this comment is part of a much larger and surreal thread about a lesbian bar where the owner finally decided to relax the rule on masking, and people started basically throwing a fit, bullying, calling her racist, etc. One of the bar's founders left for clown school (not a joke), and it seems one person is left holding the bag for a bar that's not profitable but is being bullied into keeping it open.
edit: Non-paywalled link to the article.