Comment on A rant on left-wing online infighting
missingno@fedia.io 1 day ago
There are lines that need to be drawn. If a neo-nazi says they want to push neo-nazi policies in the name of defeating Trump, nope, still not letting them in the tent just because they said they're trying to beat Trump.
And if you can agree with that extreme hypothetical, then it just becomes a debate over where we draw that line, not over whether a line should be drawn at all. I think for a lot of people, "leftist infighting" is something that's only bad when other people do it, because they drew the line in a different place from you.
Getting a little less hypothetical here, I don't think it's acceptable to throw LGBTQ people under the bus in the name of defeating Trump. Even if you want a big tent, you're still stuck with a conflict on whether that tent should include LGBTQ people or Gavin Newsom. I'd rather have the former.
We have almost four years to find a better nominee than Gavin Newsom. I am positive that we can do better than him.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
And I’m okay with your example, that would be to me best described as “even if it was for reasons you would like (defeating Trump) he did actions you think are bad (neo-Nazi-like, and specifically transphobic)”. Like you can say that Newsom shouldn’t belong in the Democrat tent because of this or that, but if he proposes housing policy that you think would be helpful, either link a material reason as to why his transphobia, previous deed or other negative quality would taint this proposal. Otherwise say something “I like this policy …even if I don’t like him” or “…even if he’s a shitbird neo-lib transphobe” or “…even if he’s probably just doing it to run for a future Presidency” or “…though most of the credit should go to the CA Assembly”.
In a more extreme hypothetical, if Trump were to somehow get Grok or ChatGPT to slop out a universal US healthcare policy document that has comprehensive detail, I might applaud the plan itself on its merits, but of course I know Trump is a pathological liar, changes his mind all the time, his administration is full of idiots too evil and incompetent to implement it, and Republican, big pharma and insurance donors will never let that get off the ground and so I’d have little trust in that happening. But I would say “Trump, as much as I despise him, had a good idea for once that Democrats could actually try implementing for real”, or “he’s probably going to say the opposite after a quick chat with Perdue” instead of “I don’t like this plan only because it came from Trump”. Discourse would be better if we could separate the words/actions from the speaker, at least to start, but say why that speaker or a relevant larger context makes the words/actions unreliable if that’s the case.
missingno@fedia.io 1 day ago
In a representative democracy, we don't just vote for policies that can be separated from their politicians. We vote for politicians.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Yes you are correct that is how elections work, but I argue that when an article or post topic is about a policy, let’s focus the discussion on the policy, and caveat with what you don’t like about the politician alongside it if you need to. Just because you like someone’s policy idea in one area, isn’t going to make you vote for them, and IMO, people assuming that association is what dissuades meaningful discussion on things we mutually want. After coming to an agreement we can then find a person that better fits the bill to elect. When it’s about voting and elections, let’s discuss more on the politician’s merits and demerits over there.