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.
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.
In a representative democracy, we don’t just vote for policies that can be separated from their politicians. We vote for politicians.
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.