I don't see this as level-headed at all. This is really an extension of the "both sides" logical fallacy. It reminds me of Elon Musk's ridiculous tweet [1].
Why is this ridiculous? Because there is no extreme left in US politics. There's like 4 members of Congress you could consider leftist. The Democratic Party as it exists now is a center right party that makes just enough progressive noises to fundraise without actually doing anything legislatively.
In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it.
On the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist [2]. The #1 show on the #1 "news" network openly pushes Nazi propaganda [3]. And what was the supposd left doing? Pelosi is campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in Congress [4] (ironically in Texas when the Supreme Court draft leaked).
The right has been massively successful in creating wedge issues to make people care about things that don't matter (eg trans people in college sports)
We've had 49 years to Federally codify Roe v. Wade but the supposed part of the Left has refused to do so despite numerous opportunities to do so.
Which brings us back to the ACLU: what hard-left turn?
> In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it.
Um... that's literally it?
Bad take my guy. Just because you can copy/paste links and make citations doesn't make your take any more true. It smacks of extreme ignorance. And saying things like "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist" just discredits you further - this is a highly politically charged statement that tells on your positions (and frankly, your mental state).
> "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist"
Do I have to cut and paste all Trump's comments and recorded statements? Politics are infuriating to discuss because you find yourself debate truth, things that are obvious but still denied.
No, you're responding to someone that just asserted concrete evidence doesn't establish truth, and that anyone that reads primary sources is probably a nutjob.
Besides, I think HN would throttle you well before you got a few percent of the way through them.
I'm familiar with a couple of these, unfamiliar with others. One problem with your cited articles is the fact that most of them don't contain direct quotes - many of them are based on second- or even third-hand accounts.
Some of these are so flimsy I'm wondering if you sent these in jest or not. Are you an elaborate troll? Serious question, because if so, I'm taking the bait. :)
I went through each bullet point and even followed links of sources. I suppose the first one was what you meant to send me? I'm familiar with this quote and it's definitely high on the list for cringe quotes. At worst this sounds xenophobic.
I'm sorry, how does this quote (I watched the video) make him racist? He basically said nothing in that quote, except he didn't admit he was wrong, which is pretty par for the course.
You actually picked an article with some teeth here. There are actually a couple of things in here that are pretty cringe from Trump's perspective (Chinese virus, anyone? Even though that turned out to be true! And the supposed Black vs White Apprentice - yeesh) but some are straight up ridiculous. 2004, he fired a Black contestant from The Apprentice? Is that really the best they got? Further, many of these are about actions taken by Trump businesses, not by Trump himself. Again note the indirect quotes from people.
BTW: you should use sources that aren't blatantly biased. Nice try, troll!
Instead of seeing a clear pattern over decades of awful statements and personal quotes, you give him the benefit of the doubt (which he doesn't deserve). Trump perhaps made it this far because one of his true skills is dancing on the line without fully crossing over it, so people that actually enjoy his awful racist ideology can still argue in polite society that "he didn't really mean that"
You can't force someone to see something they've already made up their mind isn't there.
This is a bad faith interaction, it was wrong of me to even attempt dialogue.
You'll get it right after I spend time providing evidence the sky is blue, not green.
Which is to say, you'll never catch me wasting my time talking to someone that needs such a clarification, and clearly won't listen to evidence that contradicts their immovable and laughable conclusions.
There is an extreme left in US politics, and it's a large percentage of the population.
The problem is the electoral college. You only need 50% of the votes in the smallest twenty states to fillibuster legislation in congress, twenty five states to withold funding, and sixty to overcome a filibuster.
It turns out 7% of people are all that's needed for a filibuster, and 12% can block one, assuming you have the right people. Those "super voters" are in the most conservative states in the US.
I think the populous cities should demand constitutional changes to ensure each vote counts equally. Failing that, they should work towards secession. As it is, the majority of the population is in states that send more money to the federal government than they get back, and the states running the biggest deficits are trying to claw everyone else down to their (fascist, fundamentalist, and antidemocratic) level.
I'm far more moderate than the liberal bogeymen the Republicans like to demonize.
Each person in less populated states has vastly more power than each person in more populated states. Why? Because each state gets to choose two senators. Does that make sense? I guess it does to people in those less populated states, who in effect have and hold on to the power they have. Is that how it should be in a democracy? Of course not. But people who have the power often don't like democracy.
Perhaps the democratic party shouldn't have abandoned trying to make a broad appeal.
And there is a big difference between 7% being able to block a bill and 7% being able to pass a bill. A fair number of people view it as a feature that it can be hard to pass a law when there is only some opposition.
It's an interesting set of opinions, which would be great if you didn't think these are indisputable facts that any reasonable person would agree to. Which they are definitely not.
Bill Clinton and Obama would both be considered homophobic nazis, white supremacists (a black white supremacist in the latter case, I've been assured that's a real and extremely dangerous variant of white supremacist by many foremost self-proclaimed experts), and woman haters for their views and policies on gay marriage, border control and immigration, even abortion (they said that abortions should be rare). So I'd say we've come a good way since electing those two bigoted old hatemongering dinosaurs, haven't we?
I can't tell if this a "both sides" butwhataboutism or not. But there's enough of that and enough people who will mistake my statements as "Republicans bad, Democrats good" that I'll address that even if that's not your point.
A better way to reduce my position is "Republicans bad, Democrats slightly less bad". Or, perhaps more accurately, "Republicans bad but effective, Democrats slightly less bad but completley ineffective."
That all goes to my point: the Democrats as they exist in modern US politics are completely feckless. They are way more concerned with fundraising, the aesthetics of appearing to do something and doing everything they can to stamp out any remotely progressive or socialist element of the party. There's no better example of this than the concerted effort to coronate the only candidate in 2016 who could get Trump elected over an actual progressive.
Obama, who I personally like as a person and a statesman, was a pretty ineffective president. Obama the candidate was progressive. Obama the president was just another Democratic right centrist who reneged on many campaign promises (eg codifying Roe v. Wade).
And Bill Clinton was the architect of mass incarceration of Americans (particularly minorities) with the 1994 Crime Bill (which our current president was one of the primary architects of). The 1994 Crime Bill was an abomination.
But you see, all of that makes my point: there is no Left in America. That's why I find things like Elon Musk's tweet so ridiculous and why I dismiss any notion that both sides are now more extreme. They're not. The political spectrum as a whole has shifted right. That's why "both sides" is both a logical fallacy in general and quite ridiculous in this case in particular.
> A better way to reduce my position is "Republicans bad, Democrats slightly less bad"
And you think this makes it better? It doesn't. The fact that you are on the left to most Democrats does not mean your political opinion is fact. It just means it's your opinion - which you are totally entitled to, just if you try to remember disagreeing with it doesn't make a person a *ist Nazi. If you hold to that, what you'd do is preclude any possibility of a rational discussion with you.
Disagreeing with me doesn't make you a Nazi. In the case of Tucker Carlson (whom I was referring to), spreading Nazi propaganda (eg [1]) is what makes him a Nazi. I don't mean he's a Nazi as a perjorative. I mean, quite litearlly, he's a Nazi.
The Third Reich had cultural Bolshevism [2]. Now we have other popular figures like Jordan Peterson arguing "cultural Marxism" [3]. It's completely different I'm sure.
If you suffer through Tucker's screed, he basically argues that black people are inherently violent. black people are inferior to real (ie white) people and that they're being manipulaated and used by George Soros against "real Americans". Replace "George Soros" with "the Jew" and you have an almost word-for-word translation of Nazi Germany propaganda.
Highest rated show on the highest rated "news" network by the way.
This isn't hyperbole. The normalization of Nazi views and fascism is terrifying and real. It's this same propaganda that has convinced people that there even is an extreme left in US politics.
> Disagreeing with me doesn't make you a Nazi. In the case of Tucker Carlson (who I was referring to), spreading Nazi propaganda (eg [1]) is what makes him a Nazi. I don't mean he's a Nazi as a perjorative. I mean, quite litearlly, he's a Nazi.
Sorry, it was too painful trying to get through the Nazi propaganda you're spreading here. I'm afraid that I won't be able to take your word for it though.
I think it's rather much more likely that he is not literally a Nazi by any objective definition, that it is not Nazi propaganda he is spreading. It may be wrong, insensitive, even racist things he is saying, but it also may be things that aren't obviously wrong or necessarily racist but they threaten your beliefs and opinions. You'll forgive me for not just accepting that someone else is a Nazi based on anonymous internet accusations. I would certainly be open to reconsider it based on e.g., a transcript.
I am sympathetic to the issues of watching Tucker Carlson for any extended period. That one video I referenced actually broke my soul to watch. So let me show you some digests:
- "Quiz: Can You Tell the Difference Between Tucker Carlson and an Admitted White Supremacist?" [1]
- "How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable" [2]
Replace the entire thing Tucker Carlson said with the entire text of Mein Kampf and you have the entire text of Mein Kampf.
He is accusing George Soros, a specific unique Jew. Arguing that is an attack on all Jews? Or the Sacklers, for that matter. Three specific Jews who committed genocide against various ethnic groups with genetic commonalities in opioid response, genocide against 2D6 variants, genocide of that gene. And in that specific instance, if you tell me it would be anti-semitic to attack the Sacklers, dude I don't care. When you say a specific powerful Jew represents all Jews, it's literally saying he's their savior or king, Messiah, or their GOD. I highly doubt good Jews like you taking them hostage like that. I prove I'm pro-semitic with my actions and words and friendship and solidarity but like I talked about before, I'm not going to cooperate with threats of accusations of being a bigot. It's not worthwhile, too easy to carry out, total impunity. And further speak for yourself, you don't speak on behalf of others, if others consider me to be very much the opposite of a bigot, whereas you in fact would qualify, don't say you speak for them. You are no messiah.
No respect for those accusations, no fucking respect for torture either.[2]
If an accusation against a member of the group is described as an accusation of the entire group, you couldn't denounce anybody for anything because everyone is part of a group and saying the whole group is bad is censored, called offensive. Particularly some groups and not others, like you can say anything you want about white people, absolutely anything, make any generalization, say they're all racist and therefore deserve are racially inferior[1]. But then you accuse one member of another group of any crime? Well that gets tricky because there's bigotry from all groups against all groups, but uh...the press kills those stories.
The movement is in practice trying to censor everything white people have to say. Silence whites.
And frankly the one calling "George Soros" "the Jew" is you, you wrote those words for the first time. You're the inventor of that piece of bigotry. A Nazi might put your comment as a source in his bibliography, then your words would be word-for-word inside a future Nazi book.
[1] In fact the progressive movement right now considers racial inferiority to only be attainable through racism. Everything else, any deformity or genetic abnormality, no need for treatment ever, six fingers whatever, they don't talk about deformities even if they were presented by every member of a group. No need for treatment to root that gene out, even if it's medically desirable, the group in question wants to do it and has the money, they hate that they object to that. The real inferior deformity, which deserves to be treated with scorn and hatred, is anything they can accuse of racism.
[2] Hey at least in Room 101, in which I would spend what according to the Gregorian Calendar was a lunar month, I have a roof over my head. I have four walls that prevent everyone except my formally accredited doctor, his assistant...like in 1984 there was a guy in a lab coat preparing the injections, that guy. I remember exactly nothing but there were three people normally. There were the orderlies, who you normally never see, the guys strapping you down, coercing you physically. All accredited professionals. And there's the beautiful toys, the video games, the time machine, the place in which I lay or sit, the straps, maybe sensors to impress me with numbers quantifying the suffering inflicted like I'm going to say "oh 35 that's a big number, hope it doesn't go up to 300 because pain is linear", the syringes with the recreational drugs I suppose were good shit. Them touching me on the hand, bedside manner, telling me I'm mad and they're going to cure me exactly like in 1984. Them like reading 1984 out loud to me to delete it all.
That's a book about a madman being cured by a psychiatrist, in the psychiatrist's own words, O'Brien/Barros literally claims to be curing the man he calls a madman, Cussen/Smith, of insanity. It's a book about medicine. It's a medical textbook. The peak of Oceania technology, where all that research money really goes. Same stuff they use to drill into the men at Guantanamo. And it's stupid shit, if you look behind the curtain it's really dumb manipulative shit.
But I have a home during that entire time. Just as Jesus on the Cross, during crucifixion, had a place to himself that nobody could evict him from. Nobody told him get off the cross and fuck off, ripped him off the nails creating orifices out of the stigmata, stole his crown of the true King covering his beautiful face with blood, told him he didn't add up to shit and wasn't the real deal, didn't deserve a shot at martyrdom. Like, you haven't paid rent for your sacrifice or we just want to kick you off. We can't let you fulfill and become the first guy to stick up to torture.
At least if I'm being tortured somebody gives a shit about me enough to torture me, because it's extremely expensive, requires a lot of staff and a support team, somebody has to pay for all of that. They're ganging up on the torture victim (or victor, if he doesn't succumb) and it's just much less impressive when you see it for the incredibly pathetic act of cowardice it is. In 1984, it looks like it's just O'Brien dominating Smith, but read it closely several times and the Ministry of Love is a hugely expensive operation. Anybody can act like they're invincible with that amount of people ganging up on "the minority of one."
But somebody cares, on the street nobody cares. Eviction I respect, torture I just don't.
> I don't mean he's a Nazi as a perjorative. I mean, quite litearlly, he's a Nazi.
Again, you say it like you think it makes you argument better. On the contrary, it makes it much worse. While disliking Carlson and calling him a Nazi in a pejorative sense would be somewhat plausible (though massively exaggerated) argument, calling him literally a Nazi (i.e. member of NSDAP or one of the following parties) is plain and obvious lie.
> The Third Reich had cultural Bolshevism
The Reich didn't "have" it - Bolshevism was a real movement, and its adherents have wreaked massive havoc in Russia, killing millions, and in Germany the German Communists - which were ideological twins to Bolsheviks in Russia - were a major competitors of Nazis. That doesn't make either of them good guys, to be sure - they were both horrendously bad, with Nazis succeeding in being more horrendous, but in a meaning of "killing of 20 millions vs just killing 10 millions".
Bolsheviks weren't some Nazi invention. Neither are Marxists - many modern activists openly admit to being Marxists. Some don't use "Marxist" but adjacent terms like "socialist" or "democratic socialist" but once you ask them about their ideological axioms, they are right into Marxist mainstream.
> he basically argues that black people are inherently violent.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't. And the give-away word here is "basically". If we dig it up, it'll soon turn out Carlson didn't say anything like that, but you interpreted something he did say - by taking the most hostile interpretation possible and making two or three logic leaps from here - is as saying that, and that's why you needed to add "basically".
> Replace "George Soros" with "the Jew"
That's a cheap trick. You can't do such replacements - it's completely OK and not anti-Semitic to criticize a particular Jew for what he personally does. It's exactly when you replace it with a generic - i.e. make a shift from personal actions to imagined inherent racial/enthnic qualities - where it becomes racist and anti-Semitic. So you essentially saying "if you make anti-Semitic generalization then it'd be anti-Semitic". Of course it'd be - but it's you who did it!
Soros is a particular person, who happens to be Jewish (as are millions of Americans). It is completely legitimate to criticize him - and any other Jew - for what that particular Jew does in his personal capacity. Same, of course, is true of a Black person, Asian person, woman, man, gay person, trans person, blonde person, left-handed person - any person who you criticize for his personal action, it is not bigoted, regardless of which checkboxes that particular person checks in their personal data file.
To argue otherwise would mean to establish separate rules for different identities, and that would be bigoted - instead of defining person by their action, or, as one person said, "by the content of their character", you lump them together will all people who look like that person, or have similar genetics, or similar other inherent unchangeable qualities - completely erasing their personality and their personal agency and responsibility.
> The normalization of Nazi views and fascism is terrifying and real
Saying something "is real" because you imagined it doesn't make it real. You're not God Almighty that can create reality by His word. It's just your words, and they are worth even less when you use them carelessly.
> It's this same propaganda that has convinced people that there even is an extreme left in US politics.
"Extreme left" is an emotional and subjective term. Of course for some people some leftist positions appear extreme, just as for some other people some right positions appear extreme. That's just their opinion. Pretending like there's some objective measure that defines "extreme" and you used this measure and concluded there's no "extreme left" is, again, pretending your personal opinions are facts. But they aren't.
> The Reich didn't "have" it - Bolshevism was a real movement, and its adherents have wreaked massive havoc in Russia
Sigh. "Cultural Bolshevism" is not Bolshevism. It's a rhetorical device invented by the Nazis to attack various people and things they didn't want in the Third Reich. It had nothing to do with actual Bolshevism but was things like art, music and authors that didn't reflect their values. See "Degenerate Art" etc.
Oh sure they did attack artists they didn't like. Unlike many other things, that one wasn't unique to the Nazis. So do people in the US. Both sides of the spectrum attack art that they don't like - in different ways. Just this month Dave Chapelle was physically attacked on stage because somebody didn't like his art. This is not the only case by far - people get "cancelled" for all kinds of artistical "crimes", and though physical attacks are thankfully still rare, threats and property destruction becomes more and more common.
Below that, in the legitimate field, there lies a long-standing tradition of art critique - which yes, sometimes harshly criticizes certain art. This is what Peterson is doing too, though it is by far not the most important part of his work.
Are all these people Nazis then? I don't think so. Not even the person that attacked Chapelle - he was a violent idiot, but likely not a Nazi. I think, instead, certain people - mostly on the Left - are abusing "Nazi" label to delegitimize their opponents and the criticism of any actions of their side, while keeping the right to criticize - and sometimes physically attack, destroy, burn and maim - from their side. Needless to say, it's not how political - or cultural - discussion should be properly held.
"whataboutism" - hah give me a break, you brought up historical change and previous presidents to contrast how things have changed! Now it's whataboutism to do the same thing because you don't like the point.
And it was satire! Not surprised it's difficult to recognize but clearly it's spectacularly idiotic to actually call a black person a white supremacist. No, if I was going to criticize Obama for something unironically it would obviously be his rampant corruption and nepotism, warmongering, foreign interventions, and many failures in Eastern Ukraine and the South China Sea, underestimation of and troubling relationship with Putin, etc.
And I hear a lot of claims without evidence that "there is no left" or that one party is less worse than the other. I'm not convinced by either. The former is just pointless arguing of semantics when the intention is normally pretty clear, and the latter is clearly highly subjective.
Additionally, I am old enough to remember when being against illegal immigration wasnt a "hateful extremist right-wing", issue. (Pre-2016, Schumer, Pelosi etc talked about it a lot).
Oh they were all talking about securing borders, halting illegal immigration, etc. Hell, some of them even separated immigrant children from their families at the border and caged them. At some point in time that all became the Nazi™ thing to do, prior offenders were all retroactively absolved of their sins, and asking about how that made any sense was "whataboutism".
> So, let's just say there is a vaccine that is approved and even distributed before the election. Would you get it?
> I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about.
This is the exact same tactic used by anti vaxxers on the right. s/Donald Trump/Fauci/. Talk about undermining public trust in institutions - this is the (now) vice president publicly saying that it would have been possible and probable for a vaccine which wasn't safe or effective to be released to the public.
There were a few weeks early on when the vice, slate, the Atlantic etc. were minimizing the virus, and the right was taking the other side. Then it switched overnight with no acknowledgement. Vice even pulled some articles. Then later Fox news suddenly claimed they had always been pro vaccine. I read it was something to do with consistency with Rupert Murdoch's news properties in the UK. There are a few countries where it stayed the other way around, Israel I think?
So if (and I do mean "if") you're calling recent Republiccan statements and policy as simply being against "illegal immigration", that's a level of revisionism right up there with the Civil War being about "states rights". For example:
- "Tucker Pushes Racist ‘Great Replacement’ Theory Yet Again, ADL Renews Call for Fox to Fire Him" [1]
- "Trump referred to Haiti and African nations as 'shithole' countries" [2]. He then went on to say we should have more immigration from Norway, which is probably the whitest country on Earth. Coincidence?
- "President Trump Pardons Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio" [4]
- "The parents of 545 children separated at the border still haven’t been found" [5]
- "Here’s what you need to know about Title 42, the pandemic-era policy that quickly sends migrants to Mexico" [6] (a policy that should've ended on the first day of Biden's presidency but--fun fact--Biden has excluded more asylum seekers under Title 42 than Trump did)
If Republicans actually cared about these people they'd end policies that destabilize countries and create refugee crises like the completely unwarranted sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba.
For the record, when it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same.
And yes, the fact that so many want to leave their very poor, often dangerous or dirty, countries validates that they are indeed shitholes. They will tell you as much, if not in words, by their actions. It doesn't mean that that person is bad or that you hate them (or their culture, ethnicity, etc.) if you frankly describe the unfortunate situation of their country with that word.
As someone from outside the US I agree that the "left" in the US are mostly just corporate stooges with empty promises. I think progressive causes are mostly a distraction and don't really help most people that would need state support the most.
But subjecting yourself to the left - right dichotomy is disabling to yourself for the most part.
Gay marriage is a point, although on a state level that is pretty much a tax adjustment today. There were no real other demands. Perhaps gender neutral passports, but honestly that isn't really a foundation for policy crafting. Which demands did #metoo have and which were realized? Same with the question for the movements against racism? There is no result because there are no demands. Or at least I didn't hear any.
There are women in low wage jobs that could use support. How is #metoo helping them. How is removing police helping regions with crime problems. Ending prosecution of drug users was on the plan since decades and is sensible in contrast to recent demands.
> Because there is no extreme left in US politics.
No extreme economic left. Instead, the left concentrates on racial issues, which is how enforcing even existing immigration law has become taboo, whites have been a minority among births since 2016 [1], and the white supremacist president campaigned with a "platinum plan" for Blacks.
Except for the 2nd amendment and abortion opponents, the right has been an utter failure. A puppet for corporate interests pushing overseas invasions and tax cuts.
In any case, if merely implying that borders should be enforced qualifies as white supremacy, then it's no wonder no party is considered "left", even on non-economic questions.
The closest thing are the extremes in SF and a few other places.
The progressives in SF can't even keep their tools on the school board sharp enough to avoid being kicked out of office in the most liberal city in the US.
In contrast, there are left wing parties in other countries that know how to run for office, hold positions, and get things done. You know - by actually doing things.
Why is this ridiculous? Because there is no extreme left in US politics. There's like 4 members of Congress you could consider leftist. The Democratic Party as it exists now is a center right party that makes just enough progressive noises to fundraise without actually doing anything legislatively.
In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it.
On the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist [2]. The #1 show on the #1 "news" network openly pushes Nazi propaganda [3]. And what was the supposd left doing? Pelosi is campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in Congress [4] (ironically in Texas when the Supreme Court draft leaked).
The right has been massively successful in creating wedge issues to make people care about things that don't matter (eg trans people in college sports)
We've had 49 years to Federally codify Roe v. Wade but the supposed part of the Left has refused to do so despite numerous opportunities to do so.
Which brings us back to the ACLU: what hard-left turn?
[1]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144/phot...
[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-rep...
[4]: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-c...