I'll venture to say most of the left online or otherwise have no materialist conception of history. So because "they were mean to me" she no longer believes the working people should control the means of production. I haven't listened to her or TYT very much, so I don't know if they claim to be Marxist or just garden variety liberal democrats. She probably had some vague notions of social and economic justice that she, like Tulsi, is abandoning to find her place in the Sun where unicorns frolic and she's exempt from criticisms. The fact that someone would toss aside their leftist principles to pander to the demented logic of the right says there wasn't any conviction to start with, let alone any material analysis. But there is reactionism. And why do so many folks hate fact checking? If we can't get facts straight, we may as well burst into flame.
Spot on! Like, even if everyone told me I sucked and unsubscribed from my Substack, that wouldn't change my view on trans rights or labor policy. It's such an odd jump, I can only reason it's financially motivated or a consequence of an inflated ego.
My dear brother, it’s simpler than this. I mean, it absolutely is spot on commentary. But Krystal and Sagar changed completely what new media news looks like. But if I had to wager, someone being the “conservative” to Cenk’s progressive is a business decision.
Fair. I do think ego and money come hand-in-hand, as the right will cheer these people while paying them. I'm sure it's a blurry line, but praise without money doesn't attract many people.
I don't watch them much, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I've understood them more to be like The Rising, where each side presents their point and then moves on, with limited back-and-forth. As I understand Crossfire, it was just Tucker Carlson and a former Clinton staffer yelling at each other.
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.
That's all very smart. I just disagree with the notion that Ana Kasparian has ever done much questioning of the practicality of theory. In the exchange with Joe, it appeared she did not know what socialism even is, which would be surprising in someone with a poli sci master's degree.
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.
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?
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 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.
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
"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."
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.
Fantastic analysis and overview - time and her positions will be the ultimate tell but it's not encouraging. Appreciate the thorough and fair opinion especially the timelines and examples.
It’s all about the $$ for her.
I wouldn't doubt it. Especially because that's why she thinks people leave the left.
I'll venture to say most of the left online or otherwise have no materialist conception of history. So because "they were mean to me" she no longer believes the working people should control the means of production. I haven't listened to her or TYT very much, so I don't know if they claim to be Marxist or just garden variety liberal democrats. She probably had some vague notions of social and economic justice that she, like Tulsi, is abandoning to find her place in the Sun where unicorns frolic and she's exempt from criticisms. The fact that someone would toss aside their leftist principles to pander to the demented logic of the right says there wasn't any conviction to start with, let alone any material analysis. But there is reactionism. And why do so many folks hate fact checking? If we can't get facts straight, we may as well burst into flame.
Spot on! Like, even if everyone told me I sucked and unsubscribed from my Substack, that wouldn't change my view on trans rights or labor policy. It's such an odd jump, I can only reason it's financially motivated or a consequence of an inflated ego.
“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!
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.
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.
My dear brother, it’s simpler than this. I mean, it absolutely is spot on commentary. But Krystal and Sagar changed completely what new media news looks like. But if I had to wager, someone being the “conservative” to Cenk’s progressive is a business decision.
That's a good point. He recently stated she'd be staying on TYT. Maybe they're pivoting to the Breaking Points model.
It’s cynical to say, but follow the money. It’s always money with some people. Not values.
Fair. I do think ego and money come hand-in-hand, as the right will cheer these people while paying them. I'm sure it's a blurry line, but praise without money doesn't attract many people.
Isn't Crystal and Sagar just doing the "Crossfire" model than Jon Stewart famously destroyed?
I don't watch them much, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I've understood them more to be like The Rising, where each side presents their point and then moves on, with limited back-and-forth. As I understand Crossfire, it was just Tucker Carlson and a former Clinton staffer yelling at each other.
Ah that would make sense. I guess Krystal and Sagar aren't as heavily partisan.
Oof, I wish that were the case, but Sagar seems awfully partisan to me.
Yeah, I don't watch them enough to make the call. I've only seen a few clips. I try to avoid political media as much as possible.
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.
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.
That's all very smart. I just disagree with the notion that Ana Kasparian has ever done much questioning of the practicality of theory. In the exchange with Joe, it appeared she did not know what socialism even is, which would be surprising in someone with a poli sci master's degree.
If you think the left is vicious and unforgiving towards anyone who disagrees, wait until you see the right.
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.
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?
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.
These people Don't care. They care more about a Dem win than genocide. They've lost the plot.
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.
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 Ana.
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.
"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.
What a ❄ No courage of her supposed convictions.
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."
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.
Fantastic analysis and overview - time and her positions will be the ultimate tell but it's not encouraging. Appreciate the thorough and fair opinion especially the timelines and examples.
Thanks! Glad it came across as me trying to be fair. I didn't want to rag on her, but try and explain the hypocrisy at the core.