

Part of the problem, eh?
Part of the problem, eh?
when asked whether they agreed with the statement that members of the opposing party are “not just worse for politics—they are downright evil,” 42 percent of both Republicans and Democrats responded “yes.”
Yikes, that’s a terrifying mentality for 42 percent of people to have, that’s downright ruinous to any attempts to salvage the democratic system.
Yeah, I’ve been seeing a lot of sensationalist posts from this user tbh
She’s enough of a chode that the Guardian shouldn’t have to resort to trash clickbait about how she hired the same web designer, jfc…
Ok, good for you, but that’s beside the point.
This article is reactionary, leftist apologetics for yet another “socialist” politician who’s being publicly called out because her political actions don’t really line up with her professed progressive views.
She’s clearly a decent enough politician, and yeah, she’s willing to compromise, but she’s also 1) disingenuously representing herself as something that she’s not, or 2) not self-aware enough to realize that she’s a social democrat and not a democratic socialist.
Either way, her behavior doesn’t line up with her professed leftism, but does increasingly align neatly with standard, neoliberal Democratic policy. She’s become a part of the establishment, and got there by riding the anti-establishment, socialist sentiment in young people. Not sure how that could be considering anything but problematic.
You’re misunderstanding me (probably because I misspelled “defers” as “differs”).
I’m saying she, as a proclaimed “progressive,” generally isn’t that progressive at all and generally defers to centrist, Democratic Party leaders: she does what they say rather than sticking to her ostensibly much more leftist guns.
It absolutely is hero worship any time someone is put on a pedestal and their flaws are ignored.
That’s what the author of the linked article has explicitly done. He waves away the fact that she consistently defers to Democratic Party leadership—except for occasional, “token gestures of resistance to solidify the illusion” that she’s a hard-line leftist—and then holds her up as the face of progressivism.
If that’s not hero worship idk what is.
Edit: spelling
I mean, the article linked is an AOC apologist quite literally bending “definitions and rules to make exceptions” for her after another columnist said she was “just a regular old Democrat now.”
Branding the progressive left the “AOC Left” is also problematic and indicative of some hero worship on the author’s part.
Yup. It’s too easy to be “Christian” these days, which breeds complacency and corruption in a hierarchical religious system (which, by dint of its hierarchical structure and opportunity for abuse of religious ideals, already breeds complacency and corruption).
When you legislate (bastardizations of) your religious precepts into law, at no point do you have to consciously “choose” to be Christian, at no point do you have to make the hard choice between, say, holding to your faith or having an abortion because you’re really, really not ready for a kid. It’s just not an option, and you’re forced to do what your Church says, which seems…un-Christian.
Idk. I’ve been trying to workshop this thought—that living in a religious society results in half-baked, hypocritically-“religious” abominations that end up in office—rather than thoughtful, intentional participants in a diverse and thriving society that understand why they choose to live in one way and listen to their neighbors explain why they choose to live in another.
The goal would be to use that approach to get Christians voting for legitimate freedom of choice, but idk if it’s even worth it at this point, it seems pretty impossible to sway them at times.
Looking back at the early days of persecuted Christianity (Roman times) it seems like people were legitimately drawn to these communities because they looked out for each other in a way that others didn’t. Christians have come a long way from that, in a bad sense, and I wonder if the lack of (actual) persecution plays a part in that.
deleted by creator
You’ve absolutely been self-righteous about it. I think this comment is a good example, as is spam posting the same links without really saying anything other than “or…you could go vegan :) tee hee!”
It’s not productive, and actively turns people off in a time when many of those same people are, for the first time, reconsidering their dietary balance.
It’s like criticizing an out-of-shape person at the gym. Maybe they’re not doing it the way you think it should be ideally done, but they’re at least trying and doing something rather than giving up entirely.
Kindly fuck off with your spammy “relevant” links and your sanctimonious “oh you’re almost there, sweetie” attitude.
We get it, you’re vegan and you think everyone should be. Unfortunately, that’s never going to happen, but what can happen is that people reduce the amount of animal products they consume, which would have a MASSIVE impact relative to how things are now.
That said, your attitude is actively harming the cause that you espouse. Nobody’s gonna want to go vegan if this is how you act about it, jfc.
Love how you’re getting downvoted for promoting a vegetarian diet in a thread about…eating less meat lol, I guess there are more ex-Redditors here than I realized.
Interesting too that neither Left nor Right are immune to this style of propaganda, and as things get increasingly more insane it’ll only get worse.
Corporate interests co-opting and playing the biases of the media giants against each other absolutely doesn’t help restore confidence in accurate news, either…
Not sure what the solution is, but right now we’re seeing what happens when politicians use scare tactics to make the other party into the evil “other.” Great for getting votes/staying in office, but so so destructive to the democratic process.
Not pumped about posting an instagram link lol, but it’s Cal Kearns
Jacobin is clearly panicked by the possibility that the Outsider Left might not actually inherit the Democratic Party’s mantle, but seems unwilling to ask why or to suggest a solution.
This op-ed consists of hand-waving apologetics that glaze over AOC’s often neoliberal voting record with feel-good references to, for example, the legacy of the failed Green New Deal, and it reads like an excuse.
Perhaps Jacobin is merely attempting to convince itself, but an injunction to think of “the health of the socialist and broader progressive movements” feels pathetic at the end of an article that’s largely failed to defend the socialist Wunderkinder against the leftist critique that they’re all just regular old Democrats now.
Is it really, though? AOC and her ilk further their careers by happily selling their politically-profitable, “socialist” personas to a tragically hoodwinked outer-left constituency that’s just hopeful for meaningful change.
See ya at the next Met Gala, AOC.