Online left-wing infighting seems to me to be about applying labels to people because they argue or have argued one thing on a particular topic, and then use it to discredit an unrelated argument topic or paint their overall character. I know there are pot-stirring trolls and compulsive contrarians, but I do witness users I personally judge to have genuine convictions do this amongst each other.
Within US politics, CA Gov. Newsom is an illustrative example (plenty of examples exist too for other countries and around Lemmy/Fedi). I don’t particularly like him, he has done things I think are good, some things I think are funny, something things I think are bad and some things I think are downright horrible. Yet I have encountered some users online who will say they can’t ever applaud a move of his if one specific other policy or set of other unrelated policies crossed a line for them. I’m not asking people to change their mind on what they think of a person because of an isolated good thing they do, but to at least acknowledge it as a good thing or add nuance describing what about it you like or don’t. I can accept saying “I don’t think this is a good thing in this circumstance”, “this person will not follow through with this thing I think is good thing because ___”, or “they are doing a good thing for wrong and selfish reasons” too. But to outright deny any support for an action because of a wildly extrapolated character judgement of the person doing it, when that user would support it otherwise, vexes me greatly.
I know this is not every or most interactions on Lemmy, but these are just some thoughts I have to get out of my head. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m using ‘left-wing’ because the definition of ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ is wide-ranging depending on who you talk to. And on the side of the spectrum I’m calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other. That’s all, thanks for reading.
While lemmy itself isn’t a target for propaganda bots, the narratives they push kinda seep in.
Propaganda doesn’t seek to convert a leftist to the right, their strategy is to fragment the left - factions spend their energy arguing amongst themselves instead of presenting a cohesive opposition.
For example, elements of the left were protesting about Palestine outside Kamala’s campaign events.
On that topic you’re quite right. One PAC was funding contradictory messages about Kamala Harris’ stance on Israel, targated at Jewish and Muslim populations.
There probably are a handful of propagandists here, but I start with the presumption that almost everyone engages with good faith until shown otherwise. Anyway, that’s why I’m calling for nuance in my rant, which could help combat assumptions formed from propaganda.
It was indeed very bad for the democracts to support Israel so staunchly. This is the problem with the US ‘left’. They’re not really left, they’re neoliberal. Money is all that matters to them.
You really need a real left there.
Supremacist ideology sets in
I don’t know if it was clear but I don’t subscribe to any ideology. I just align loosely with them based on my own values.
Yes, neoliberal is supremacist/adjacent.
I’m absolutely not neoliberal :)
🫶
Now I understand you sorry 🫶
I came from reddit and I’m kinda used to every comment being an attack. Sorry.
No worries, I think I misunderstood first. Thanking you for your graciousness.
Absolutely true. And yet, whenever US politicians do buck the trend and become vaguely left and give strong criticism to Israel and try to stop us arming them, this same group of people calls them “Zionists” or throws paint on their campaign offices, and tries to insist that leftists shouldn’t support those politicians, either.
Almost as if it was always about creating division in the left and not about Israel in the first place…
Exactly what I’m talking about. Well done.
That will do little bot, that will do.
I’m not bot :P
I mean I see where you’re coming from, all the right was shouting “Genocide Joe” at the time but now that Trump is in power he’s best buddies with Netanyahu and they are silent :(
But really the democrats unrelenting support for Israel was unjustifiable and it was right to be called out. You don’t support evil just because it’s the least bad option or something. I guess there’s a lot of money filling the coffers from there or something but it doesn’t matter, it is wrong.
You may not be a bot, but you’re parroting republican bot talking points so you may as well be.
What a silly thing to say. Of course you “support evil”, when doing to is the least evil course of action.
Well no. I’m not parroting anything, it is my own opinion that supporting Israel’s genocide is bad. In fact my own country (Holland) is a very big Israel supporter and I hate that and I often criticise that.
In fact the republican outrage wasn’t genuine because they stopped complaining when they won and their own leader started doing the same (in fact he is bigger bros with netanyaho than biden was). I called out their hypocrisy with their “Genocide Joe” statements which I don’t support (because it flattens a complex issue to a slur).
When I say “supporting evil” I mean supporting netanyahu. I wouldn’t stay silent on criticising this even if the alternative is worse. I just don’t believe in black/white discussions and I’m not a team player, I don’t get told what to think. I mean I wouldn’t support the democrats supporting Israel even when the republicans are worse (and they also support Israel).
If I were American I would still vote for the democrats but I would protest their support of Israel. Though if I were American I’d leave and renounce my nationality tbh.
Don’t be so confident there isn’t bot and or paid influence activity here. There have been some suspicious trends that pop up even on lemmy.
The narrative was vote Biden and move him left. Biden did not move left. He enabled and contributed to genocide. Kamala actively stated she would continue Biden’s policies. She also said she would be “tough on the border”.
Should anyone in a democracy believe the words and actions of the candidates?
I talk to people about ideas like “keeping the full benefit of their labor power”, “cooperating with other human beings”, “no war but the class war” and “no gods no masters”. I’m awful at parties and fragmenting the left. Infighting is real. Never trust a ML.
If the dems had convincingly won the last n elections, the republicans would move to the left, which would push the dems to the left.
Biden won by a hair’s breadth.
Whose narrative was that? The narrative was, Trump is trying to end democracy and put Hispanics (and later Democrats) in concentration camps, so vote for his opponent. Seems like that was kind of borne out by the future events.
Are you still pissed off that people were suggesting voting for Kamala Harris, watching the state of the US and the world right now? Are you proud of advocating for not voting?
Why do you assume this? It’s impossible to tell most of the time, but every so often one of them fucks up and reveals that something hinky is going on.
The most recent example was someone who was furious about Graham Platner and said we shouldn’t support him, fellow leftists, while also claiming to have been in the US military and also to be from Platner’s tiny home county, using both of those as sources of authority to speak on it, and I can say that at least the military side of that was definitely a lie because the person didn’t know how the US military works.
What is the explanation for that, other than that the person is deliberately doing propaganda against progressive candidates?
The voting system is uttely cancerous and feeds into the westoid preoccupation with creating winners and losers in society. It naturally creates echo chambers.
That being said, your speculation is foolish. Private intelligence contractors openly advertise that they monitor the fediverse. It would be kind of stupid not to