Another shooting in Murica

[braineclipse]

There is barely a left, certainly not a radical one.

There are radical leftists if one cares to look for them (not much point). It's a minority, a fringe, for the most part rejected by the mainstream left.

By Trump and many on the right anyone left of centre are described as radical leftists and unfortunately many believe them. Even fairly milk toast centrist democrats get that label.

On the right what was once radical has mostly been made the mainstream GOP/Trump/MAGA. Kirk has contributed to that.

 

[braineclipse]

This is what the right is great at. Not governing for the masses but controlling the message. They own the megaphone.
The right, in the US in particular, has been playing the long game and at this juncture can manufacture a reality at will and saturate the media landscape with whatever pathetic grievance they've decided to come up with. It is rather impressive in a way and unfortunately there is nothing comparable on the left to counteract this.

I really struggle to see what the left even could do to counteract it, particularly in this media landscape. "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on".

I wish Democrats and the left would be more willing to call out fascist tendencies and the influence of money in politics and political discourse. But I'm not sure it would matter much.

Given the polarisation and bubbles existing I think the only people who could be really influential on this would be people actually on the right standing up to misinformation and grievance mongering. That's not happening to any significant extent.

The left using the same tactics as the right just wouldn't work or be effective.

 

[braineclipse]

Owen Jones is an example of it on the left in this country - but agreed that it’s not so prevalent.

Here, by the way, are some comments from the alleged ‘gentleman of debate’, helpfully rounded up by The Guardian;

Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’

The far-right commentator didn’t pull his punches when discussing his bigoted views on current events

www.theguardian.com

Good summary. Recommend reading for anyone not familiar with Kirk wanting to know why he was despised by many.

People being positive about someone when they've just died I can understand. But while alive this guy was widely celebrated, boosted, supported, accepted.

My only feedback on that article would be the "didn't pull his punches" part as that seems far too positive for me. He repeatedly and unrelentingly punched down. He spread his bigotry to millions. A bigot, a theocrat and a conspiracy theorist with real fascistic tendencies.

Him being seen as anything other than a fringe radical weirdo is an insult to decency and ethics. He was an exploiter of human vulnerabilities.

(I've heard that one shouldn't insult the recently deceased and am assuming an appropriate amount of time has now passed).

 

[Rorschach]

I really struggle to see what the left even could do to counteract it, particularly in this media landscape. "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on".

I wish Democrats and the left would be more willing to call out fascist tendencies and the influence of money in politics and political discourse. But I'm not sure it would matter much.

Given the polarisation and bubbles existing I think the only people who could be really influential on this would be people actually on the right standing up to misinformation and grievance mongering. That's not happening to any significant extent.

The left using the same tactics as the right just wouldn't work or be effective.

Yes it is very difficult to see a way through this. The right goosestep in perfect sync on any topic they think will advance their power. The billions that have already been poured into junk thinktanks, buying local radio stations, sponsoring of bro pocasts, working the media 'refs', politics from the pulpit, etc means the deluge of information is overwhelming. And this is only growing in the US with so-called MSM bending the knee now.

But the left is not without its own advantages. Namely, truth and reality are on their side, and people don't like what the right is selling when it comes down it. The polling shows that. Although breakthrough moments are rare, they happen and point to better way to counter the rights media narrative. You do not need to copy the right's MO, it is too late for that now. You need to be smarter and build your base in an alternative way. The Meidas network is a great example, as is the Mamdami campaign in NYC. But instead of learning the lessons from these successes democratic leadership just bricks on them.

 

[braineclipse]

Yes it is very difficult to see a way through this. The right goosestep in perfect sync on any topic they think will advance their power. The billions that have already been poured into junk thinktanks, buying local radio stations, sponsoring of bro pocasts, working the media 'refs', politics from the pulpit, etc means the deluge of information is overwhelming. And this is only growing in the US with so-called MSM bending the knee now.

But the left is not without its own advantages. Namely, truth and reality are on their side, and people don't like what the right is selling when it comes down it. The polling shows that. Although breakthrough moments are rare, they happen and point to better way to counter the rights media narrative. You do not need to copy the right's MO, it is too late for that now. You need to be smarter and build your base in an alternative way. The Meidas network is a great example, as is the Mamdami campaign in NYC. But instead of learning the lessons from these successes democratic leadership just bricks on them.

I agree that I think a pivot to a more left wing political approach probably would be a good idea (assuming I'm reading you correctly). The Democrats have been too wishy washy centrist, trying to please everyone instead of having clear values and policies they want to get done. I think that's contributed to lowering support and mobilisation. Mamdani is a good example to be followed.

But I also think some return to "normality" on the right is very much needed and the left can't do that. For that I think we have to hope for some kind of fracture on the right, which in a way seems impossible, but I don't think it actually is.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Yes it is very difficult to see a way through this. The right goosestep in perfect sync on any topic they think will advance their power. The billions that have already been poured into junk thinktanks, buying local radio stations, sponsoring of bro pocasts, working the media 'refs', politics from the pulpit, etc means the deluge of information is overwhelming. And this is only growing in the US with so-called MSM bending the knee now.

But the left is not without its own advantages. Namely, truth and reality are on their side, and people don't like what the right is selling when it comes down it. The polling shows that. Although breakthrough moments are rare, they happen and point to better way to counter the rights media narrative. You do not need to copy the right's MO, it is too late for that now. You need to be smarter and build your base in an alternative way. The Meidas network is a great example, as is the Mamdami campaign in NYC. But instead of learning the lessons from these successes democratic leadership just bricks on them.

I agree with all that BUT you do have to be careful over the polling numbers. I personally never thought there were so many ********* in this world. (Fill in the blank as you wish)

You have to hope there are a big swathe of people in the middle just being quiet.
You wouldn't think it given the amount of noise day in day out. But you might find lots of people don't like noise and switch off.

 

[SubZero]

Given the polarisation and bubbles existing I think the only people who could be really influential on this would be people actually on the right standing up to misinformation and grievance mongering. That's not happening to any significant extent.

The left using the same tactics as the right just wouldn't work or be effective.

The polarisation is the biggest problem, like they're even. Unlike total left, which cannot work, total right may - to an extent. Heck, not even Lenin himself could live by pure Marxism/Leninism. It doesn't support itself, never have and chasing that ghost is like Grandpa Simpson throwing fists at clouds.

A good mix of left and right is what every civilized country has adopted since WW2, and which is why 95% of their population is better off than they would be 100-150 years ago. Both bolshevism and nazism grew from the need for change, and we're talking real change. Not that Cleetus believes he would be rich if not for Pablo taking all the money he should have. Bolshevism, what most right-wingers call "left", grew from the Russian ruling class hoarding and squandering money in people's faces while they were starving, not that Amir from Kazakhstan came and ate all their food. I find it strange that Brits and Franks in particular can't totally identify with that, given their history. It's like in Norway, where a scary portion of the population thinks and talks like we've been oil rich since the viking age, not that most were fishermen and peasants speaking some weird Swed-Dane-German dialect, writing Danish, and that foreigners are coming to destroy our pizza and Taco Friday culture.

But for argument's sake, let's say we had such a system today that the bad, bad "left" fought, where in society do most of the far right people think they would be? Given their skill, usefulness to the ruling class and general intelligence? It helps very little that 2% would be unbelievably much better off if you are among the other 98%. It's easy for colonialists to look at the old pictures and lithographies of strapping young men with their mustaches and negro servants and thinking that would be them if not for X or Y. Newsflash: it probably wouldn't.

 

[Bullet]

Just going back to the topic of Charlie Kirk rather than Bolshevism, this video sums up my feelings well and is also nice to watch

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966307794438717513

 

[Bullet]

For those not on Twitter. Your feed is determined by who you follow. You can follow Spurs news and subjects that interest you like golfers or naturalists or people like Gavin Newsome. You don’t have to avoid Twitter.

 

[Chrissivad]

For those not on Twitter. Your feed is determined by who you follow. You can follow Spurs news and subjects that interest you like golfers or naturalists or people like Gavin Newsome. You don’t have to avoid Twitter.

Yeah, you can also set filters so you can miss out a lot of the fear, hate and anger on there as well, but you still get some coming through.

 

[Lost Mango]

Such leadership and in no way a part of the problem:

'I couldn't care less', Trump says about division within the country​

The president, when asked about how we “fix the country” or “come back together” after Kirk’s shooting, says that he “couldn’t care less”.

“The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime, worried about the border,” Trump says. “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy”.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Good summary. Recommend reading for anyone not familiar with Kirk wanting to know why he was despised by many.

People being positive about someone when they've just died I can understand. But while alive this guy was widely celebrated, boosted, supported, accepted.

My only feedback on that article would be the "didn't pull his punches" part as that seems far too positive for me. He repeatedly and unrelentingly punched down. He spread his bigotry to millions. A bigot, a theocrat and a conspiracy theorist with real fascistic tendencies.

Him being seen as anything other than a fringe radical weirdo is an insult to decency and ethics. He was an exploiter of human vulnerabilities.

(I've heard that one shouldn't insult the recently deceased and am assuming an appropriate amount of time has now passed).

I agree with most of what he's quoted as saying in that article. As, mercifully, so many other people do too.

 

[tommysvr]

I agree with most of what he's quoted as saying in that article. As, mercifully, so many other people do too.

Out of curiosity, which are the quotes you don't agree with?

 

[Rorschach]

I agree that I think a pivot to a more left wing political approach probably would be a good idea (assuming I'm reading you correctly). The Democrats have been too wishy washy centrist, trying to please everyone instead of having clear values and policies they want to get done. I think that's contributed to lowering support and mobilisation. Mamdani is a good example to be followed.

But I also think some return to "normality" on the right is very much needed and the left can't do that. For that I think we have to hope for some kind of fracture on the right, which in a way seems impossible, but I don't think it actually is.

Yes, lock in your base with the policies they want. Don't overthink it and never fudge with that foundational dynamic. One of the failings of the last election was the Biden/Harris ticket courting the right-wing vote and playing footsie with the never trumpers too much. I'm sure some smartass advisor said that was the way to win, but the result was to shed progressive votes by the bucketload and they gained fudge all wavering rightwingers because of it.

Maybe there is a chance that the right will fracture. Trump is the glue that holds the 3 main factions together - the rightwing extremists, the tech oligarchy, the christian nationalists. They have a common purpose now but if Trump were to shuffle off this mortal coil, this coalition may fall apart. Honestly, though I think the only way the fever breaks is if things fall apart. By that I mean America - states seceding from the union etc. The cracks are forming.

 

[Gutter Boy]

For those not on Twitter. Your feed is determined by who you follow. You can follow Spurs news and subjects that interest you like golfers or naturalists or people like Gavin Newsome. You don’t have to avoid Twitter.

Except that it reverts your feed from your carefully curated 'following' to their 'for you' hate chamber, pretty much on a daily basis

 

[Rorschach]

I agree with all that BUT you do have to be careful over the polling numbers. I personally never thought there were so many ********* in this world. (Fill in the blank as you wish)

You have to hope there are a big swathe of people in the middle just being quiet.
You wouldn't think it given the amount of noise day in day out. But you might find lots of people don't like noise and switch off.

Election polling I would agree with you on, but actual policy polling when the whole dem/gop thing is put to one side shows overwhelmingly folks like what the dems are selling (as long as they don't know it is a dem policy). This is the power of controlling the media narrative. The right have overwhelmingly won this battle.

 

[Rorschach]

Just going back to the topic of Charlie Kirk rather than Bolshevism, this video sums up my feelings well and is also nice to watch

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966307794438717513

I was more tuned in to the vid to see if he put the flashing back on correctly.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Out of curiosity, which are the quotes you don't agree with?

I don't know the context of all of them, but one of the ones about Islam, possibly the gun violence one and the Nuremburg trial one.

 

[tommysvr]

I don't know the context of all of them, but one of the ones about Islam, possibly the gun violence one and the Nuremburg trial one.

So a black pilot flying the plane you’re on would make you uncomfortable?

 

[tommysvr]

For those not on Twitter. Your feed is determined by who you follow. You can follow Spurs news and subjects that interest you like golfers or naturalists or people like Gavin Newsome. You don’t have to avoid Twitter.

It’s not worth giving them the ad revenue.