If someone has money and power, they are inherently right-wing. The belief in private ultra-wealth and top-down control is a right-wing position, so these people rarely give to leftists, who seek to end the power imbalance.
There is a lot more money in the right than the left; right-wingers for to business school because they believe in money, left wingers get polisci and philosophy degrees because they believe in ideas
That's why all the CONs lie so fuuking much. They know it's lies They know it piss the left off and they make bucks doing it. They laugh all the way to the bank.
The whole thing strikes me as fundamentally being in bad faith to begin with. "Person with a uterus"...
I will wager here that no-one has ever personally referred to Ana as a person with a uterus. I will wager still further that 99.999% of cis women have never been personally referred to as this, or some variation of this. I will further wager that the only time this term is used instead of 'woman' is when, for example, trying to write healthcare leaflets that *include transmen*. It's niche language used for specific purposes, and anyone personally offended by it is a) lying (because they have never personally been called this) and b) acting in bad faith (because they've never bothered to check when and how such language is used).
"I am personally offended by this thing that has never personally happened to me or, indeed, anyone" is, wittingly or not, pure grift. It's no different in form or substance to the "And now school X is installing cat litters". It's the modern day ancestor of "enemy Y eats Belgian babies".
It's just grim how doctors trying to make sure they provide healthcare to minority groups by using very carefully considered language turns into culture war bullshit that weaponises non-existent grievance and very real prejudice into, ultimately, very real discrimination against vulnerable people.
I recall that comment. It was in relation to an article using that descriptor for women used in some study. Again, maybe just pure over reaction to be inclusive by the study authors or deliberate divisive red meat. Either way, smart people don’t let themselves fall for those games.
This describes almost every person on the right; poring over traditional, online and social media to find nuggets of outrage that they can douse in lighter fluid and set on fire for their faithful.
What you don't seem to understand is that terms like "person with a uterus" don't IMMEDIATELY become everyday language. But when you begin to see them in clinical use, and used by public officials in public settings (which I have seen both, personally), the next thing is hearing them taught in school, next thing is HR and DEI corporate. And within two generations, it IS a common (and degrading, dehumanizing) way to refer to a woman.
There was a time when we thought the term "MAP" (Minor Attracted Person) would NEVER become a term to describe p3d0z, yet there are multiple circumstances of high school teachers using this term and correcting students for saying "p3d0". Additionally, in the UK, terms like "chestfeeder" and person with a urerus are much more common in medical, educational, and governmental language. Children are taught this language in schools.
THAT'S how you get to the point where regular women on the street are referred to in these derogatory terms. You people think so small, so in the moment, always focused only on YOUR world and how it relates to you. Never thinking about what your kids or grandkids will experience 30, 40 years from now.
These things happening now are just seeds to that. That's why you have to push back on it NOW. In its beginning stages. If not, you can expect your daughter or grandaughter to be referred to as an "estrogen-producer" in her liberal arts class one day.
That's kind of like Nancy Mace guarding against trans women in the women's bathroom when she has never even seen one, much less seen one doing something dicey.
What you don't seem to understand is that terms like "person with a uterus" don't IMMEDIATELY become everyday language. But when you begin to see them in clinical use, and used by public officials in public settings (which I have seen both, personally), the next thing is hearing them taught in school, next thing is HR and DEI corporate. And within two generations, it IS a common (and degrading, dehumanizing) way to refer to a woman.
There was a time when we thought the term "MAP" (Minor Attracted Person) would NEVER become a term to describe p3d0z, yet there are multiple circumstances of high school teachers using this term and correcting students for saying "p3d0". Additionally, in the UK, terms like "chestfeeder" and person with a urerus are much more common in medical, educational, and governmental language. Children are taught this language in schools.
THAT'S how you get to the point where regular women on the street are referred to in these derogatory terms. You people think so small, so in the moment, always focused only on YOUR world and how it relates to you. Never thinking about what your kids or grandkids will experience 30, 40 years from now.
These things happening now are just seeds to that. That's why you have to push back on it NOW. In its beginning stages. If not, you can expect your daughter or grandaughter to be referred to as an "estrogen-producer" in her liberal arts class one day.
A nothing answer that doesn't address or dispel ONE point I made. Also, nobody cares about DEI except those who cant succeed on merit alone. Thanks for your reply to my comment that had nothing to do with my comment, tho. Good talk. ;)
You didn’t make a point dean, you’re hysterical. You are not being oppressed because other people are being included in a conversation. Also, if you’re a woman/ person with a uterus, DEI is what allows you to have a job. White women, in fact, are the #1 DEI statistics, next being veterans. If you actually read what DEI is instead of download your opinions from turning point USA, you’ll notice that the actual verbiage of the law is “one cannot be passed over or fired for a job because who they are”, NOT “you have to hire x amount of this type of person.” You’ve been played.
It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince them they have been fooled. They tell on themselves when they think DEIA is about giving black and brown ppl jobs bc the color of their skin. You’d think people would have enough sense and or self awareness to understand the things they feel so strongly about. But these people just let their racist biases do the thinking and will happily jettison their rights as long as qualified brown ppl aren’t getting jobs over their unqualified white peers.
Hilarious but mostly sad that the admin lauding merit based hiring literally has the least qualified cabinet to ever to lead this country. And the folks crying about merit based hiring cheer them on. The lack of self awareness is damn near impossible to understand.
As a woman, I find nothing offensive about being called a person with a uterus or chest feeder. Those terms make it more inclusive for my trans and non binary friends. I don’t care if my daughter or granddaughter are called those more inclusive terms either.
I've worked a lot in Primary schools in the UK. What you're saying is absolutely not true, I've never, ever heard 'map' or 'cheatfeeder' in a school context, these terms are absolutely *not* taught to kids in schools. It's propaganda being pushed by anti-sex education lobbyists.
I was having a conversation with an activist I’ve worked with for years. And we both feel the same. Our commitment to causes has not changed. Unlike others who have “left the left” but we have found ourselves distancing from a lot of spaces. The left, and especially the online left has shifted. It is no longer very welcoming. And it’s sad, as in it makes me sad.
We talked about how “theory bros” have ruined everything. And the “left” needs to deal with this problem, or you’ll see more and more people leaving these spaces.
I’ve always disliked TYT. Something about it just always felt slimy. I can’t explain it better than that. I’m sorry.
And I won’t try to guess her motives. But, there is some truth to the fact that left spaces make people feel very unwelcome, online and in real life, enough that we weren’t the only people having these conversations.
I don't doubt some places are hostile, primarily online. Once we strip away our humanity and become a "username" to someone else, it's much easier for them to insult and deride us over minor differences. That's for sure a problem. And not just in politics. On sports Twitter, fans of the same team will curse each other for suggesting different starting quarterbacks!
That said, I find it essential to differentiate between that and Kasparian's choice. It sounds like you rationally decided to avoid those spaces (as do I). Alternatively, she decided to let them "push" her to a different politics. That's what I take issue with.
Mostly I posted that because I felt like “Once we strip away our humanity and become a "username" to someone else” was getting too close to the common mistake of blaming pseudonymity for online toxicity, rather than poor moderation (which is inherent in the paradigm of for-profit Social Media).
I see. Yea, that's a good point. A lot of this blame should be leveled at social companies. Interesting stuff is going on with a lawsuit against TikTok, which might hold them accountable for toxic algorithms.
I never found the online left to be particularly welcoming lol. I don’t think this is coincidental either; I think psyops regularly target leftist spaces and spread discord and misinformation to prevent any growth. Then people accept that’s the “culture” and either adapt, preserving it, or leave. Either way it prevents us from organizing
As someone who did leave the left in no small part to how vicious and unforgiving the left is towards any alternative viewpoints, it's refreshing to see some self-awareness in your comment. It is my observation that most on the left have almost zero self-awareness of how their zealotry is off-putting and counterproductive. Thanks for giving me a little hope that there are some still left on the left who actually think independently and understand how cancel culture behavior impacts the perception of pet causes.
You hit the nail on the head. When you devote yourself as a movement to ideological purity, you will drive people from your causes. And that leaves a lot of us who truly believe in “leftist” ideals with no where to go, and no community.
I read theory too. But, what the zealots often forget is that there is a practicality to theory that needs to be accounted for. Demonizing those who ask questions about the practicality is going to eventually cause their advocacy to fail and for they themselves to be seen as lunatics.
Speaking of theory, Lenin is often reduced to "the most EXTREME leftist ever," but in reality he put pragmatism above all else. I highly suggest "left wing communism" where he discusses this.
The left has the same problem as the right. You go far enough right and you got white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, in worsening and worsening degrees. Same with the left. The farther you go you get more and more radicalized ideologies. What the mainstream left is up against now is showing it's distance from the crazies. Just like they have to do on the right. Nowadays you have outside influence from hostile foreign countries adding to the crazy in their attempts to destroy America.
What pisses me off is that we can't come together as a country, realize the threat we face from these outside forces and collectively do something about them. But we have people that see it as well they are helping my party so I'm ok with that. Ok with another country influencing our political discourse for an unknown objective. How fucking insane is that? When did it become party over country?
I have a question for you and this is not snark so apologies in advance if I sound that way. You said,
“You go far enough right and you got white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, in worsening and worsening degrees. Same with the left.”
What is farther and farther left? How does going farther to the left make something that is good, bad? My understanding of the spectrum is human rights and dignity on the left and the opposite of that on the right (even for white Christian men, because what dignity can be found in controlling and ruling over other people?). Maybe I have the spectrum mislabeled though, so I’m curious as to how you and others might see it.
Typically someone younger (20-30s) who has zero actual training in policy, liberal arts, ect. Basically they read a book, and believe themselves to be an expert on the topic, including the way it should be implemented.
If pressed for an answer, or questioned…they typically can’t. Instead they get this very condescending tone and demand that if you read the same book you would obviously have the same conclusion as them and if you don’t read the book, you’re too stupid to understand what they are talking about. It’s insufferable. lol
I’m a white woman from Trump country. I was raped by a Mexican classmate in California. Supposed feminists told me not to report it because of racism. People thought that I was making it up because racism.
The experience was horrible. It made me rethink *everything.* I left the left and became a lot more conservative, especially on some of the topics highlighted in this article. I’m still left in a lot of ways, for example, I still favor taxing the rich and oppose the genocide in Gaza. I vote Democrat, but feel politically homeless.
Notably, I can’t talk about the changes to my views leftist friends because of their vitriolic, close-minded and unanalytical reactions, but I can comfortably discuss my liberal views with my more conservative friends. I do think this speaks to something toxic in the leftist culture.
Anyways, I experienced similar thought pattern changes to Ana following a sexual assault and find this attack on her motives pretty vile. It reminds me that there are no “perfect victims” and that people don’t always respond to trauma the way that we expect or want them to. I certainly don’t envy that Ana experienced all of this publicly.
Lol very enjoyable read. I was unfortunately a tyt fan back in my old lib days when I took everything online as real life. The best remedy for online grifters is, as per your example, to log off and go do something in the real world. Sad what Anna has become but it has been a long time in the making. Remember when TYT tried to unionize lol. Anyways, good article Joe
I don't know about the others, but to claim Glenn Greenwald has left the left, Glenn, who has been outspoken for free speech, anti-censorship, supporter of Julian Assange, and opposing the genocide in Gaza, is a head-scratcher indeed. I didn't see you give an example that included him. As he has said, he hasn't changed his core views, but, in our current world, maintaining the same views over the past twenty years, has meant he has gone from being labelled "being on the left," to now as being called someone who is on the right, says a lot more about the labellers than it does about him. He certainly doesn't support the machinations of the Democratic Party, which perhaps is the litmus test for these labels, at least for some.
For me, it came around the time he exited The Intercept. He began calling himself a libertarian, got very cozy with Peter Thiel (who backs his show on Rumble) and Tucker Carlson, and adopted their language. He also became a quasi-advocate for Bolsonaro in Brazil, which I find to be a right-wing position.
Oh the horrors! Someone might actually interact with people of a differing political viewpoint! That must make them guilty by association! It's precisely this attitude that shows how insular and frankly ridiculous the left has become.
I didn't criticize anyone for "interacting" with different viewpoints. I criticized them for taking money and echoing their rightist viewpoints. I clearly differentiated between those two things.
You said he got cozy with Peter Thiel and Tucker Carlson, implying that because he's friendly with, say, Tucker Carlson, that must ergo make him a right-winger instead of a principled left-winger who can find common ground with someone like Tucker.
If you’ve ever seen Greenwald on Tucker, it’s pretty clear he adapts his reactionary politics. He doesn’t push back. (IMO, other people here disagree.)
This is actually something Kasparian criticized Rubin for in the 2018 clip I included. She says Rogan pushes back on people while Rubin lets them say whatever.
What reactionary politics? You mean freedom of speech, which the left has abandoned? Be specific. Otherwise, you're just throwing out ad hominems that have zero substance. And does someone always have to engage in "push back" to prove their ideological loyalty to you?
Just curious about what “left” organizations you quit. Because there really aren’t any where I live. I haven’t cut off my friends who supported Hillary or even some anti-vaxxers, because if I did there would hardly be anyone “left.” But in my job as a lawyer we are constantly being told that we’re wrong. You get used to it or go work for a bank or insurance company
I mean, I don't see advocacy per se for Bolsonaro. All I see is a guy that is questioning the current narrative about what took place in Brazil. Remember, his journalism proved pivotal to free Lula, and he has enough credit in the bank to call what is currently in Brazil how it is. If Greenwald is right wing, then the left is less than 1% of the population. If having a show on Rumble makes you a Peter Thiel associate, then everybody with a YouTube show is an Eric Schmidt simp (Google) and pro Bilderberg group. His exit from the Intercept was due to the fact that he was not willing to publish stuff about fake Russia collusion, and finding himself alone, one makes weird alliances. Like what happened to Joe Rogan. He had endorsed Bernie, but the left is addicted to losing, and now, well.
I understand that this might be your opinion, which is cool by me. But I'd invite you to reconsider ;) because my opinion is that the left is on highway directly to irrelevance.
The left is the 3% of people to the left of the Democratic party. They are the ones who would rather attack the center left party than the right wing party.
The far Left has this delusion that only their tiny minority knows the truth and the rest of the world is spending all that money and time for no reason. Plenty of highly intelligent people can see countless differences between the parties. They aren’t even the same on Israel-Gaza, though it’s true the Biden administration upheld 70 years of policy in continuing to support Israel, however we hold major stakes in Israel the region militarily and economically, and it would be extremely difficult with a Republican house to extricate ourselves all of a sudden in an election year. They both take a lot of money from corporate donors. The differences are still hugely important. And then there is Trump himself, who poses very serious threats to democracy. 🤷🏻♀️
I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just wish people would at least realize this and vote pragmatically in spite of some major problems that both sides share, in part due to the system itself
It doesn’t mean you don’t care, it means you’re not going to let Trump and Republicans run things because there’s a difference. Trump is a psychopath for one thing.
He completely lost it when he was targeted for revealing classified information. He took it personally and has been on a revenge mission since, Obama don Clinton PTSD.
"Your politics should be based on critical analysis of the material world around you, not the digital insults of an account that can be blocked with the click of a button. Anyone who shares their political opinions, whether on a radio show, podcast, YouTube channel, or Substack article, will get criticism and blowback. It will come from all sides of the political arena, even those they’re most closely aligned with."
Exactly this and that Cody Johnston tweet perfectly sums up the grift. It is both possible to take issues with "woke" culture or just any flaws of the left while believing in advancing civil rights and economic democracy. The "Why I Left The Left" people are either grifters or have dog-brains.
This is the fundamental issue with online politics/culture war. People take on borderline hysterical attitudes when they cling to their beliefs socially and not fundamentally. Any difference in opinion becomes an attack on your identity, an existential conflict threatening to psychically obliterate your personhood, rather than a disagreement on perspectives. This can explain why people on Twitter act in a way that’s uniquely psychotic to the platform.
Also this is a symptom of when journalism and political commentary is subject to market logic—they become personal/lifestyle brands. The dictates of good branding are antithetical to the dictates of good journalism, let alone trustworthy political analysis. There is diligent analysis and there is performative reaction: Which opinions are real and which are for show? What doesn’t get said or should, because it’s off-brand? Truth-telling rests to follow one’s research wherever it leads, and trusted analysts have to be willing to be changed by what they discover. For a trusted brand, the duty is the opposite: to keep embodying your brand identity—your “promise”—no matter what the world throws at you.
Public figures doing whatever they feel is best for their career and then pretentiously justifying it, why should we care about them? If you’re just constantly “leaving the Left,” you’re going in circles. Who wants to waste their time listening to this bullshit. It’s not even political commentary, it’s autobiography.
"It’s not even political commentary, it’s autobiography." — Damn, that's an excellent analysis. As for people who watch it, I think rightist mouth breathers like to be told "you're right."
A couple of people belonging to the Palestinian diaspora heavily criticized me on substack. I guess I should start supporting Israel and its genocidal campaign.
That’s always my metric for whether someone wants criticism of their work or if they’re claiming “extreme honesty” and really only interested in monetizing it.
It’s all about the $$ for her.
I wouldn't doubt it. Especially because that's why she thinks people leave the left.
Genuinely curious - why is it seemingly so muchmore lucrative to monetise a right-wing perspective than a left-wing one?
If someone has money and power, they are inherently right-wing. The belief in private ultra-wealth and top-down control is a right-wing position, so these people rarely give to leftists, who seek to end the power imbalance.
It's in the name I guess... If you have wealth and power you want to CONSERVE the existing power structure... Cos it works for you.
There is a lot more money in the right than the left; right-wingers for to business school because they believe in money, left wingers get polisci and philosophy degrees because they believe in ideas
That's why all the CONs lie so fuuking much. They know it's lies They know it piss the left off and they make bucks doing it. They laugh all the way to the bank.
The whole thing strikes me as fundamentally being in bad faith to begin with. "Person with a uterus"...
I will wager here that no-one has ever personally referred to Ana as a person with a uterus. I will wager still further that 99.999% of cis women have never been personally referred to as this, or some variation of this. I will further wager that the only time this term is used instead of 'woman' is when, for example, trying to write healthcare leaflets that *include transmen*. It's niche language used for specific purposes, and anyone personally offended by it is a) lying (because they have never personally been called this) and b) acting in bad faith (because they've never bothered to check when and how such language is used).
"I am personally offended by this thing that has never personally happened to me or, indeed, anyone" is, wittingly or not, pure grift. It's no different in form or substance to the "And now school X is installing cat litters". It's the modern day ancestor of "enemy Y eats Belgian babies".
That was the thing. No one called her that. She heard some doctors used it in medical papers, and got Big Mad.
It's just grim how doctors trying to make sure they provide healthcare to minority groups by using very carefully considered language turns into culture war bullshit that weaponises non-existent grievance and very real prejudice into, ultimately, very real discrimination against vulnerable people.
I recall that comment. It was in relation to an article using that descriptor for women used in some study. Again, maybe just pure over reaction to be inclusive by the study authors or deliberate divisive red meat. Either way, smart people don’t let themselves fall for those games.
Exactly. You have to be wanting to get mad at something to take that bait.
This describes almost every person on the right; poring over traditional, online and social media to find nuggets of outrage that they can douse in lighter fluid and set on fire for their faithful.
Ah man there are lots of women who got a hysterectomy… I find people being AGAINST medically precise language to be big time whiney
Big time whineys
indeed. If a woman has had a hysterectomy, providers need to know.
What you don't seem to understand is that terms like "person with a uterus" don't IMMEDIATELY become everyday language. But when you begin to see them in clinical use, and used by public officials in public settings (which I have seen both, personally), the next thing is hearing them taught in school, next thing is HR and DEI corporate. And within two generations, it IS a common (and degrading, dehumanizing) way to refer to a woman.
There was a time when we thought the term "MAP" (Minor Attracted Person) would NEVER become a term to describe p3d0z, yet there are multiple circumstances of high school teachers using this term and correcting students for saying "p3d0". Additionally, in the UK, terms like "chestfeeder" and person with a urerus are much more common in medical, educational, and governmental language. Children are taught this language in schools.
THAT'S how you get to the point where regular women on the street are referred to in these derogatory terms. You people think so small, so in the moment, always focused only on YOUR world and how it relates to you. Never thinking about what your kids or grandkids will experience 30, 40 years from now.
These things happening now are just seeds to that. That's why you have to push back on it NOW. In its beginning stages. If not, you can expect your daughter or grandaughter to be referred to as an "estrogen-producer" in her liberal arts class one day.
Now that’s woke!
That's kind of like Nancy Mace guarding against trans women in the women's bathroom when she has never even seen one, much less seen one doing something dicey.
Stupid.
What you don't seem to understand is that terms like "person with a uterus" don't IMMEDIATELY become everyday language. But when you begin to see them in clinical use, and used by public officials in public settings (which I have seen both, personally), the next thing is hearing them taught in school, next thing is HR and DEI corporate. And within two generations, it IS a common (and degrading, dehumanizing) way to refer to a woman.
There was a time when we thought the term "MAP" (Minor Attracted Person) would NEVER become a term to describe p3d0z, yet there are multiple circumstances of high school teachers using this term and correcting students for saying "p3d0". Additionally, in the UK, terms like "chestfeeder" and person with a urerus are much more common in medical, educational, and governmental language. Children are taught this language in schools.
THAT'S how you get to the point where regular women on the street are referred to in these derogatory terms. You people think so small, so in the moment, always focused only on YOUR world and how it relates to you. Never thinking about what your kids or grandkids will experience 30, 40 years from now.
These things happening now are just seeds to that. That's why you have to push back on it NOW. In its beginning stages. If not, you can expect your daughter or grandaughter to be referred to as an "estrogen-producer" in her liberal arts class one day.
You know there are real things to be mad at, right? Like DEI being rolled back? You don’t have to make things up.
A nothing answer that doesn't address or dispel ONE point I made. Also, nobody cares about DEI except those who cant succeed on merit alone. Thanks for your reply to my comment that had nothing to do with my comment, tho. Good talk. ;)
You didn’t make a point dean, you’re hysterical. You are not being oppressed because other people are being included in a conversation. Also, if you’re a woman/ person with a uterus, DEI is what allows you to have a job. White women, in fact, are the #1 DEI statistics, next being veterans. If you actually read what DEI is instead of download your opinions from turning point USA, you’ll notice that the actual verbiage of the law is “one cannot be passed over or fired for a job because who they are”, NOT “you have to hire x amount of this type of person.” You’ve been played.
It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince them they have been fooled. They tell on themselves when they think DEIA is about giving black and brown ppl jobs bc the color of their skin. You’d think people would have enough sense and or self awareness to understand the things they feel so strongly about. But these people just let their racist biases do the thinking and will happily jettison their rights as long as qualified brown ppl aren’t getting jobs over their unqualified white peers.
Hilarious but mostly sad that the admin lauding merit based hiring literally has the least qualified cabinet to ever to lead this country. And the folks crying about merit based hiring cheer them on. The lack of self awareness is damn near impossible to understand.
As a woman, I find nothing offensive about being called a person with a uterus or chest feeder. Those terms make it more inclusive for my trans and non binary friends. I don’t care if my daughter or granddaughter are called those more inclusive terms either.
I've worked a lot in Primary schools in the UK. What you're saying is absolutely not true, I've never, ever heard 'map' or 'cheatfeeder' in a school context, these terms are absolutely *not* taught to kids in schools. It's propaganda being pushed by anti-sex education lobbyists.
Sounds like those folks who insisted they were voting Hilary because the Berniebros were mean to them.
"Look what you made me do."
Anna was a huge supporter of Bernie in both 2016 and 2020
And yet she now sounds like one of those Hilpeople who suggested women support Bernie because they want to be with boys.
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
Groucho Marx
Good to know when someone changes from political commentator to comedy!
hilarious! i love it
Wow, the network named after literal genocide-doers turned out to not be as progressive as they were claiming! Who ever could have guessed!?
"The Young Turks" was always a very bizarre choice.
I was having a conversation with an activist I’ve worked with for years. And we both feel the same. Our commitment to causes has not changed. Unlike others who have “left the left” but we have found ourselves distancing from a lot of spaces. The left, and especially the online left has shifted. It is no longer very welcoming. And it’s sad, as in it makes me sad.
We talked about how “theory bros” have ruined everything. And the “left” needs to deal with this problem, or you’ll see more and more people leaving these spaces.
I’ve always disliked TYT. Something about it just always felt slimy. I can’t explain it better than that. I’m sorry.
And I won’t try to guess her motives. But, there is some truth to the fact that left spaces make people feel very unwelcome, online and in real life, enough that we weren’t the only people having these conversations.
I don't doubt some places are hostile, primarily online. Once we strip away our humanity and become a "username" to someone else, it's much easier for them to insult and deride us over minor differences. That's for sure a problem. And not just in politics. On sports Twitter, fans of the same team will curse each other for suggesting different starting quarterbacks!
That said, I find it essential to differentiate between that and Kasparian's choice. It sounds like you rationally decided to avoid those spaces (as do I). Alternatively, she decided to let them "push" her to a different politics. That's what I take issue with.
I feel like you’re putting too much emphasis on pseudonymity and not enough on the specific design of Twitter.
Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean how Twitter is pretty much built to dogpile on people and generate engagement?
Yeah, pretty much.
Mostly I posted that because I felt like “Once we strip away our humanity and become a "username" to someone else” was getting too close to the common mistake of blaming pseudonymity for online toxicity, rather than poor moderation (which is inherent in the paradigm of for-profit Social Media).
I see. Yea, that's a good point. A lot of this blame should be leveled at social companies. Interesting stuff is going on with a lawsuit against TikTok, which might hold them accountable for toxic algorithms.
Can it hold them accountable for repeatedly thanking Shitler for “saving” them? Gack!
I never found the online left to be particularly welcoming lol. I don’t think this is coincidental either; I think psyops regularly target leftist spaces and spread discord and misinformation to prevent any growth. Then people accept that’s the “culture” and either adapt, preserving it, or leave. Either way it prevents us from organizing
I agree.
Continually underrated factor in all nominally left wing spaces and organisational efforts.
As someone who did leave the left in no small part to how vicious and unforgiving the left is towards any alternative viewpoints, it's refreshing to see some self-awareness in your comment. It is my observation that most on the left have almost zero self-awareness of how their zealotry is off-putting and counterproductive. Thanks for giving me a little hope that there are some still left on the left who actually think independently and understand how cancel culture behavior impacts the perception of pet causes.
You hit the nail on the head. When you devote yourself as a movement to ideological purity, you will drive people from your causes. And that leaves a lot of us who truly believe in “leftist” ideals with no where to go, and no community.
I read theory too. But, what the zealots often forget is that there is a practicality to theory that needs to be accounted for. Demonizing those who ask questions about the practicality is going to eventually cause their advocacy to fail and for they themselves to be seen as lunatics.
Speaking of theory, Lenin is often reduced to "the most EXTREME leftist ever," but in reality he put pragmatism above all else. I highly suggest "left wing communism" where he discusses this.
A lot of Kasparians on this thread. Read the article again.
I think the zealotry is amplified, just like maga and should be treated as the extreme it is and not used to color the whole left.
Trying to understand, what is a left viewpoint that you have an alternative viewpoint?
The left has the same problem as the right. You go far enough right and you got white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, in worsening and worsening degrees. Same with the left. The farther you go you get more and more radicalized ideologies. What the mainstream left is up against now is showing it's distance from the crazies. Just like they have to do on the right. Nowadays you have outside influence from hostile foreign countries adding to the crazy in their attempts to destroy America.
What pisses me off is that we can't come together as a country, realize the threat we face from these outside forces and collectively do something about them. But we have people that see it as well they are helping my party so I'm ok with that. Ok with another country influencing our political discourse for an unknown objective. How fucking insane is that? When did it become party over country?
There are a lot of power brokers working hard to maintain division and to many people to willing to go along.
I have a question for you and this is not snark so apologies in advance if I sound that way. You said,
“You go far enough right and you got white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, in worsening and worsening degrees. Same with the left.”
What is farther and farther left? How does going farther to the left make something that is good, bad? My understanding of the spectrum is human rights and dignity on the left and the opposite of that on the right (even for white Christian men, because what dignity can be found in controlling and ruling over other people?). Maybe I have the spectrum mislabeled though, so I’m curious as to how you and others might see it.
One of the worst offenders is AlterNet. The comment section is loaded with them. If one deviates from the group think they are brutal.
What are theory bros
Typically someone younger (20-30s) who has zero actual training in policy, liberal arts, ect. Basically they read a book, and believe themselves to be an expert on the topic, including the way it should be implemented.
If pressed for an answer, or questioned…they typically can’t. Instead they get this very condescending tone and demand that if you read the same book you would obviously have the same conclusion as them and if you don’t read the book, you’re too stupid to understand what they are talking about. It’s insufferable. lol
I wonder what the ratio is here between expressed vigor and having actually read the book they claim to have read.
I might just hazzard a guess that it's fairly low
I agree, they have a hard time getting to any point because of all the lexicon gymnastics
Thank you for this.
I’m a white woman from Trump country. I was raped by a Mexican classmate in California. Supposed feminists told me not to report it because of racism. People thought that I was making it up because racism.
The experience was horrible. It made me rethink *everything.* I left the left and became a lot more conservative, especially on some of the topics highlighted in this article. I’m still left in a lot of ways, for example, I still favor taxing the rich and oppose the genocide in Gaza. I vote Democrat, but feel politically homeless.
Notably, I can’t talk about the changes to my views leftist friends because of their vitriolic, close-minded and unanalytical reactions, but I can comfortably discuss my liberal views with my more conservative friends. I do think this speaks to something toxic in the leftist culture.
Anyways, I experienced similar thought pattern changes to Ana following a sexual assault and find this attack on her motives pretty vile. It reminds me that there are no “perfect victims” and that people don’t always respond to trauma the way that we expect or want them to. I certainly don’t envy that Ana experienced all of this publicly.
If you’re really seeking common ground, telling all the people you used to hang out with to fuck off might not be the best way to go about it.
Exactly. "Everyone was mean to me, so I'm going to do the same" is such a weird justification.
Lol very enjoyable read. I was unfortunately a tyt fan back in my old lib days when I took everything online as real life. The best remedy for online grifters is, as per your example, to log off and go do something in the real world. Sad what Anna has become but it has been a long time in the making. Remember when TYT tried to unionize lol. Anyways, good article Joe
Thanks! I never watched them too much, but I do remember the union busting episode. GIANT red flag.
> The best remedy for online grifters is, as per your example, to log off and go do something in the real world.
Careful, you're liable to end up like Anna.
I don't know about the others, but to claim Glenn Greenwald has left the left, Glenn, who has been outspoken for free speech, anti-censorship, supporter of Julian Assange, and opposing the genocide in Gaza, is a head-scratcher indeed. I didn't see you give an example that included him. As he has said, he hasn't changed his core views, but, in our current world, maintaining the same views over the past twenty years, has meant he has gone from being labelled "being on the left," to now as being called someone who is on the right, says a lot more about the labellers than it does about him. He certainly doesn't support the machinations of the Democratic Party, which perhaps is the litmus test for these labels, at least for some.
For me, it came around the time he exited The Intercept. He began calling himself a libertarian, got very cozy with Peter Thiel (who backs his show on Rumble) and Tucker Carlson, and adopted their language. He also became a quasi-advocate for Bolsonaro in Brazil, which I find to be a right-wing position.
Just my thoughts!
Oh the horrors! Someone might actually interact with people of a differing political viewpoint! That must make them guilty by association! It's precisely this attitude that shows how insular and frankly ridiculous the left has become.
I didn't criticize anyone for "interacting" with different viewpoints. I criticized them for taking money and echoing their rightist viewpoints. I clearly differentiated between those two things.
You said he got cozy with Peter Thiel and Tucker Carlson, implying that because he's friendly with, say, Tucker Carlson, that must ergo make him a right-winger instead of a principled left-winger who can find common ground with someone like Tucker.
If you’ve ever seen Greenwald on Tucker, it’s pretty clear he adapts his reactionary politics. He doesn’t push back. (IMO, other people here disagree.)
This is actually something Kasparian criticized Rubin for in the 2018 clip I included. She says Rogan pushes back on people while Rubin lets them say whatever.
What reactionary politics? You mean freedom of speech, which the left has abandoned? Be specific. Otherwise, you're just throwing out ad hominems that have zero substance. And does someone always have to engage in "push back" to prove their ideological loyalty to you?
Just curious about what “left” organizations you quit. Because there really aren’t any where I live. I haven’t cut off my friends who supported Hillary or even some anti-vaxxers, because if I did there would hardly be anyone “left.” But in my job as a lawyer we are constantly being told that we’re wrong. You get used to it or go work for a bank or insurance company
There's a difference between interaction and promotion.
I mean, I don't see advocacy per se for Bolsonaro. All I see is a guy that is questioning the current narrative about what took place in Brazil. Remember, his journalism proved pivotal to free Lula, and he has enough credit in the bank to call what is currently in Brazil how it is. If Greenwald is right wing, then the left is less than 1% of the population. If having a show on Rumble makes you a Peter Thiel associate, then everybody with a YouTube show is an Eric Schmidt simp (Google) and pro Bilderberg group. His exit from the Intercept was due to the fact that he was not willing to publish stuff about fake Russia collusion, and finding himself alone, one makes weird alliances. Like what happened to Joe Rogan. He had endorsed Bernie, but the left is addicted to losing, and now, well.
I understand that this might be your opinion, which is cool by me. But I'd invite you to reconsider ;) because my opinion is that the left is on highway directly to irrelevance.
Didn't realise there was a Thiel/Greenwald connection.
The left is the 3% of people to the left of the Democratic party. They are the ones who would rather attack the center left party than the right wing party.
The far Left has this delusion that only their tiny minority knows the truth and the rest of the world is spending all that money and time for no reason. Plenty of highly intelligent people can see countless differences between the parties. They aren’t even the same on Israel-Gaza, though it’s true the Biden administration upheld 70 years of policy in continuing to support Israel, however we hold major stakes in Israel the region militarily and economically, and it would be extremely difficult with a Republican house to extricate ourselves all of a sudden in an election year. They both take a lot of money from corporate donors. The differences are still hugely important. And then there is Trump himself, who poses very serious threats to democracy. 🤷🏻♀️
I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just wish people would at least realize this and vote pragmatically in spite of some major problems that both sides share, in part due to the system itself
These people Don't care. They care more about a Dem win than genocide. They've lost the plot.
It doesn’t mean you don’t care, it means you’re not going to let Trump and Republicans run things because there’s a difference. Trump is a psychopath for one thing.
I forgot to include: https://youtu.be/z7lQ8f09LPc?si=iODOmGfRLwE06gze
https://youtu.be/TPvcyiYpzu8?si=6CxMyq16ZHYmeg6r
Oh sweet summer child. They are the same thing.
I disagree completely
You would. Blue MAGA is a cult.
It’s not that homogenous
He completely lost it when he was targeted for revealing classified information. He took it personally and has been on a revenge mission since, Obama don Clinton PTSD.
"Your politics should be based on critical analysis of the material world around you, not the digital insults of an account that can be blocked with the click of a button. Anyone who shares their political opinions, whether on a radio show, podcast, YouTube channel, or Substack article, will get criticism and blowback. It will come from all sides of the political arena, even those they’re most closely aligned with."
Exactly this and that Cody Johnston tweet perfectly sums up the grift. It is both possible to take issues with "woke" culture or just any flaws of the left while believing in advancing civil rights and economic democracy. The "Why I Left The Left" people are either grifters or have dog-brains.
This is the fundamental issue with online politics/culture war. People take on borderline hysterical attitudes when they cling to their beliefs socially and not fundamentally. Any difference in opinion becomes an attack on your identity, an existential conflict threatening to psychically obliterate your personhood, rather than a disagreement on perspectives. This can explain why people on Twitter act in a way that’s uniquely psychotic to the platform.
Also this is a symptom of when journalism and political commentary is subject to market logic—they become personal/lifestyle brands. The dictates of good branding are antithetical to the dictates of good journalism, let alone trustworthy political analysis. There is diligent analysis and there is performative reaction: Which opinions are real and which are for show? What doesn’t get said or should, because it’s off-brand? Truth-telling rests to follow one’s research wherever it leads, and trusted analysts have to be willing to be changed by what they discover. For a trusted brand, the duty is the opposite: to keep embodying your brand identity—your “promise”—no matter what the world throws at you.
(My comment is summarized passages from below)
https://thatguyfromtheinternet.substack.com/p/navigating-a-post-truth-world-means-237
https://thatguyfromtheinternet.substack.com/p/united-we-stan-divided-we-drag
Yes, this. It's a socially constructed identity, it isn't based on critical analysis of any kind.
Public figures doing whatever they feel is best for their career and then pretentiously justifying it, why should we care about them? If you’re just constantly “leaving the Left,” you’re going in circles. Who wants to waste their time listening to this bullshit. It’s not even political commentary, it’s autobiography.
"It’s not even political commentary, it’s autobiography." — Damn, that's an excellent analysis. As for people who watch it, I think rightist mouth breathers like to be told "you're right."
A couple of people belonging to the Palestinian diaspora heavily criticized me on substack. I guess I should start supporting Israel and its genocidal campaign.
LOL. That's exactly the thought process.
That’s crazy to have someone who aptly analyzed Dave R’s rightward slip turn-on-heel to place her foot right into the fossilized footprints of Dave….
She called it out to the letter. Which is why I think she's at least somewhat conscious of what she's doing.
I approve of the kid growing and learning, albeit under pressure, but her requiring payment to comment is bogus. Still feeling entitled, I guess.
That’s always my metric for whether someone wants criticism of their work or if they’re claiming “extreme honesty” and really only interested in monetizing it.
What a ❄ No courage of her supposed convictions.
Nailed it. Thank you for doing the work to show us what this is about.
Separately, as we're shopping for new parties, is DSA a suitable analog for labor parties around the world? I'm looking for a labor party in the US.
Absolutely! I'm the secretary of the Denver DSA Labor Committee. I highly recommend joining your local chapter.
Thanks for the info and thank you for your leadership in the DSA!