I mean… it really doesn’t take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It’s kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they’re awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn’t leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon’s razor applies.
Maybe. It’s real hard for me not to notice the pattern recognition of “Kamala Harris supports genocide!” “AOC supports genocide!” “Bernie supports genocide!”, basically literally any person in American politics who’s trying to do some kind of leftist thing with any level of popularity, there’s some kind of bizarre moon logic whereby they must support genocide and we’ve got to start screaming it at them and never support them again.
I will agree with you that some stupid features of the left tend to provide some nice dry powder for this kind of thing but I don’t remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse. Like circa 2000, there was a super vigorous protest movement, but it was aimed at shadowy neoliberal quasi-governments, fascist police, war machines… you know, the enemy. No one was out screaming at Al Gore for destroying the climate and throwing red paint at his offices.
here is a solution, make it clear you don’t support a genocide ! how is that hard is beyond me. If you are okay with “war crimes” and “using food as a weapon” and “apartheid state” and “illegal occupation” then how people should “trust you”.
This like saying “I am okay with giving Hitler weapon to defend German while he is committing a genocide” or “I am okay with giving apartheid South Africa weapons to protect white people while discriminating against black”
If your morality change based on who is affected do not breach morality.
Al Gore may not have really invented the Internet, but when he was in politics we haven’t figured out how to really weaponize it for political purposes yet. It’s not bizarre moon logic, it’s active manipulation.
“Genocide” is one of those hot button terms that short-circuit people’s critical thinking whenever someone invokes it, that’s why provateuers online like tossing it about. (“Pedo” is another one, which has been in the news lately). Turns out getting lasting peace in the region is difficult and can’t be reduced to slogans…
Which, to point out, he never actually said. He said “creating” - which is actually accurate, since he pushed the policies that allowed for it to exist. Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn support his stance that he was a primary driver behind its development from a policy perspective. I believe they even said no other politician has been as important to the internet (rough paraphrase, someone else can grab the exact quote) as Gore.
The claim that he said he “invented the internet” came from dirtbag pundits, of course.
It was a very, very early instance of the horseshit lie that is easy and bite-sized, and sort of reality adjacent, where anyone who’s trying to explain the reality sounds like they’re making some kind of lame excuse and is easy to shout down and dismiss. In retrospect, it should have been an all-hands-on-deck emergency to make sure that strategy didn’t work and take hold.
I think we need to acknowledge that left-wing groups (especially online) have just as much of a problem with extremists as right-wing groups do. It’s not quite as systemic and weaponized as what’s described in Innuendo Studio’s excellent video, but it is there and it can just as easily result in violent behavior.
Whenever a community turns into an echo chamber, the ideological aspects of that community switch from principles to performances. The members of the community start trying to prove that they’re holier-than-thou, usually to gain nothing more than attention.
but I don’t remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse.
I think you’re right, but I think this has less to do with some false-flag conspiracy and more to do with the accelerant nature of social media in general. I think a lot of this kind of behavior is driven by the one-upmanship impulse, and the effect of online communities is to concentrate a self-selecting group of people with similar interests. The larger the group becomes, the more an individual has to work to stand out and receive recognition from the rest of the group. Frequently the easiest way to do that is to demonstrate some extreme form of whatever the group’s ideology is.
Basically I think a lot of this is just people looking for an ego-stroking. It’s attention-seeking behavior, the kind you see in teenagers. They fall into some community or other and then find a community-acceptable way to exhibit their narcissistic tendencies.
No it doesn’t. Why would anyone still put any stock in that bullshit after witnessing the pure malice that has infected every aspect of American society?
Hanlon’s razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it’s completely dead.
Hanlon’s razor always applies. If you always assume that everything bad that happens is intentionally malicious, with no acceptance of human weaknesses and the potential for mistakes, then you are part of the extremism problem. You are part of the “everyone who does something that I don’t like must be evil” group.
Hanlon’s razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it’s completely dead.
If you actually believe this, I’m afraid you’re on the wrong side of the razor.
We don’t need more extremist rhetoric. We don’t need more division. We don’t need to perpetuate the “us vs. them” mentality.
A person calls the police and starts shouting, “help! There’s a DEMOCRAT masturbating on my lawn!” The dispatcher says they’re sending an officer and then asks, “uhhh… How do you know this person is a democrat?”
The caller responds, “they’re not fucking everyone else, only themselves.”
It’s kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they’re awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
How dare you, you filthy liberal. You’ve made an enemy for life!
I mean… it really doesn’t take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It’s kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they’re awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn’t leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon’s razor applies.
Maybe. It’s real hard for me not to notice the pattern recognition of “Kamala Harris supports genocide!” “AOC supports genocide!” “Bernie supports genocide!”, basically literally any person in American politics who’s trying to do some kind of leftist thing with any level of popularity, there’s some kind of bizarre moon logic whereby they must support genocide and we’ve got to start screaming it at them and never support them again.
I will agree with you that some stupid features of the left tend to provide some nice dry powder for this kind of thing but I don’t remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse. Like circa 2000, there was a super vigorous protest movement, but it was aimed at shadowy neoliberal quasi-governments, fascist police, war machines… you know, the enemy. No one was out screaming at Al Gore for destroying the climate and throwing red paint at his offices.
here is a solution, make it clear you don’t support a genocide ! how is that hard is beyond me. If you are okay with “war crimes” and “using food as a weapon” and “apartheid state” and “illegal occupation” then how people should “trust you”.
This like saying “I am okay with giving Hitler weapon to defend German while he is committing a genocide” or “I am okay with giving apartheid South Africa weapons to protect white people while discriminating against black”
If your morality change based on who is affected do not breach morality.
Al Gore may not have really invented the Internet, but when he was in politics we haven’t figured out how to really weaponize it for political purposes yet. It’s not bizarre moon logic, it’s active manipulation.
“Genocide” is one of those hot button terms that short-circuit people’s critical thinking whenever someone invokes it, that’s why provateuers online like tossing it about. (“Pedo” is another one, which has been in the news lately). Turns out getting lasting peace in the region is difficult and can’t be reduced to slogans…
Which, to point out, he never actually said. He said “creating” - which is actually accurate, since he pushed the policies that allowed for it to exist. Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn support his stance that he was a primary driver behind its development from a policy perspective. I believe they even said no other politician has been as important to the internet (rough paraphrase, someone else can grab the exact quote) as Gore.
The claim that he said he “invented the internet” came from dirtbag pundits, of course.
It was a very, very early instance of the horseshit lie that is easy and bite-sized, and sort of reality adjacent, where anyone who’s trying to explain the reality sounds like they’re making some kind of lame excuse and is easy to shout down and dismiss. In retrospect, it should have been an all-hands-on-deck emergency to make sure that strategy didn’t work and take hold.
I think we need to acknowledge that left-wing groups (especially online) have just as much of a problem with extremists as right-wing groups do. It’s not quite as systemic and weaponized as what’s described in Innuendo Studio’s excellent video, but it is there and it can just as easily result in violent behavior.
Whenever a community turns into an echo chamber, the ideological aspects of that community switch from principles to performances. The members of the community start trying to prove that they’re holier-than-thou, usually to gain nothing more than attention.
I think you’re right, but I think this has less to do with some false-flag conspiracy and more to do with the accelerant nature of social media in general. I think a lot of this kind of behavior is driven by the one-upmanship impulse, and the effect of online communities is to concentrate a self-selecting group of people with similar interests. The larger the group becomes, the more an individual has to work to stand out and receive recognition from the rest of the group. Frequently the easiest way to do that is to demonstrate some extreme form of whatever the group’s ideology is.
Basically I think a lot of this is just people looking for an ego-stroking. It’s attention-seeking behavior, the kind you see in teenagers. They fall into some community or other and then find a community-acceptable way to exhibit their narcissistic tendencies.
No it doesn’t. Why would anyone still put any stock in that bullshit after witnessing the pure malice that has infected every aspect of American society?
Hanlon’s razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it’s completely dead.
Hanlon’s razor always applies. If you always assume that everything bad that happens is intentionally malicious, with no acceptance of human weaknesses and the potential for mistakes, then you are part of the extremism problem. You are part of the “everyone who does something that I don’t like must be evil” group.
If you actually believe this, I’m afraid you’re on the wrong side of the razor.
We don’t need more extremist rhetoric. We don’t need more division. We don’t need to perpetuate the “us vs. them” mentality.
If you are othering, you are wrong.
Yes, even with Republicans.
We take away the power of divisive, destructive autocrats by finding or making common cause.
An old joke to your point:
A person calls the police and starts shouting, “help! There’s a DEMOCRAT masturbating on my lawn!” The dispatcher says they’re sending an officer and then asks, “uhhh… How do you know this person is a democrat?”
The caller responds, “they’re not fucking everyone else, only themselves.”
How dare you, you filthy liberal. You’ve made an enemy for life!
splitter!