Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026921753Quote"A letter to my dismal allies on the US left"Dear allies, . . . O rancid sector of the far left, please stop your grousing! Compared to you, Eeyore sounds like a Teletubby. If I gave you a pony, you would not only be furious that not everyone has a pony, but you would pick on the pony for not being radical enough until it wept big, sad, hot pony tears. Because what we're talking about here is not an analysis, a strategy, or a cosmology, but an attitude, and one that is poisoning us. Not just me, but you, us, and our possibilities. Leftists explain things to me The poison often emerges around electoral politics. Look, Barack Obama does bad things and I deplore them, though not with a lot of fuss, since they're hardly a surprise. He sometimes also does not-bad things, and I sometimes mention them in passing, and mentioning them does not negate the reality of the bad things. . . One manifestation of this indiscriminate biliousness is the statement that gets aired every four years: that in presidential elections we are asked to choose the lesser of two evils. Now, this is not an analysis or an insight; it is a cliche, and a very tired one, and it often comes in the same package as the insistence that there is no difference between the candidates. You can reframe it, however, by saying: we get a choice, and not choosing at all can be tantamount in its consequences to choosing the greater of two evils. . . Dismissiveness is a way of disengaging from both the facts on the ground and the obligations those facts bring to bear on your life. As Michael Eric Dyson recently put it, "What is not good are ideals and rhetorics that don't have the possibility of changing the condition that you analyse. Otherwise, you're engaging in a form of rhetorical narcissism and ideological self-preoccupation that has no consequence on the material conditions of actually existing poor people." . . . There are really only two questions for activists: what do you want to achieve? And who do you want to be? And those two questions are deeply entwined. Every minute of every hour of every day you are making the world, just as you are making yourself, and you might as well do it with generosity and kindness and style. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/letter-dismal-allies-us-left?CMP=share_btn_fb
"A letter to my dismal allies on the US left"Dear allies, . . . O rancid sector of the far left, please stop your grousing! Compared to you, Eeyore sounds like a Teletubby. If I gave you a pony, you would not only be furious that not everyone has a pony, but you would pick on the pony for not being radical enough until it wept big, sad, hot pony tears. Because what we're talking about here is not an analysis, a strategy, or a cosmology, but an attitude, and one that is poisoning us. Not just me, but you, us, and our possibilities. Leftists explain things to me The poison often emerges around electoral politics. Look, Barack Obama does bad things and I deplore them, though not with a lot of fuss, since they're hardly a surprise. He sometimes also does not-bad things, and I sometimes mention them in passing, and mentioning them does not negate the reality of the bad things. . . One manifestation of this indiscriminate biliousness is the statement that gets aired every four years: that in presidential elections we are asked to choose the lesser of two evils. Now, this is not an analysis or an insight; it is a cliche, and a very tired one, and it often comes in the same package as the insistence that there is no difference between the candidates. You can reframe it, however, by saying: we get a choice, and not choosing at all can be tantamount in its consequences to choosing the greater of two evils. . . Dismissiveness is a way of disengaging from both the facts on the ground and the obligations those facts bring to bear on your life. As Michael Eric Dyson recently put it, "What is not good are ideals and rhetorics that don't have the possibility of changing the condition that you analyse. Otherwise, you're engaging in a form of rhetorical narcissism and ideological self-preoccupation that has no consequence on the material conditions of actually existing poor people." . . . There are really only two questions for activists: what do you want to achieve? And who do you want to be? And those two questions are deeply entwined. Every minute of every hour of every day you are making the world, just as you are making yourself, and you might as well do it with generosity and kindness and style.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) 2. Better to read the original articleIt was hard to pick four paragraphs.
a la izquierda (8,995 posts) 6. So, in this nearly three year old piece...Leftists are told not to be bitter and divisive by someone who writes with a tone that is...bitter and divisive. Got it.
JDPriestly (49,947 posts) 84. You found this "more humorous than bitter"?"O rancid sector of the far left, please stop your grousing! Compared to you, Eeyore sounds like a Teletubby. . . . " I find that condescending and childish. If someone on DU wrote to Hillary supporters, "O rancid sector of the right, please stop your grousing! Compared to you, Eeyore sounds like a Teletubby," . . . . what would you respond? That little bit of a condescending, childish, insulting address is specifically intended to make any reader who disagrees with the author of the article irritated. It is written specifically to elicit an angry response. It is a very personal insult as it refers to part of the Democratic Party as a "rancid sector." Then it compares the person being addressed to characters from children's literature and children's TV. It's pretty much aimed to rile people up. I used to write in my job -- raising money, doing various things. The author of that article was being nasty on purpose. What kind of response were you hoping to get by posting it here? A lot of Hillary supporters complain about the tone of the discussion set by Bernie supporters. I think this OP pretty much sets a very low bar for discussion here for the future. Might be nice if you removed the OP. It doesn't help to make DU more civil. Thanks in advance. Remember if a Bernie supporter posted something equally insulting to Hillary supporters, don't you think that Hillary supporters would ask the DUer to remove it?
gratuitous (51,130 posts) 8. "With generosity, kindness and style"**** you if I'm insufficiently generous, kind or stylish for your tastes in standing up for constitutional principles. But thank you ever so much, Rebecca, for your expression of concern. What a load of sanctimonious hooey.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) 11. Her point is not that you shouldn't stand up for principle but that say, if someone talks about how great it is that marriage equality is now the law of the land, people don't come in and yell about some unrelated issue.
Star Member BainsBane (32,234 posts) 10. Kind of like how people today tell women and people of color to shut the **** up. Only that isn't what the author is saying. That falls to a different crowd that I certainly would not characterize as left. The article in fact talks about Harvey Milk's engagement. An example of what she means would be responding to a discussion about the success of marriage equality to talk about drones.
Star Member BainsBane (32,234 posts) 17. No, it is about enacting changegetting things done, rather than dismissing anyone who tries. It has nothing to do with loyalty oaths. The final message should be clear: There are really only two questions for activists: what do you want to achieve? And who do you want to be? And those two questions are deeply entwined.The message is directed at activists and those who wish to participate in making society a better place.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) 46. Whatever. How you vote is your business.And that is not the point of the article. You seem to think everyone is engaged in efforts to make you vote for Democrats. I didn't post this for your benefit, but I do not think it unreasonable for me to assume I'm posting for a Democratic audience, given the name of the site and the terms of service that specify membership is for people who support Democrats. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it.
PowerToThePeople (6,293 posts) 22. If you are third way, I am not your ally. I am an enemy of one of your enemies, Republicans
freshwest (52,182 posts) 38. Europeans have a better grasp of their history. I remember one of our posters who detailed the Nazi rise to power. Scandinavians said it was the failure of the Communists, Socialists, Unions etc. to keep their coalition together. Unable to work out their differences for the greater good, they failed to form a working government in their system. Thus the Nazi party formed the government. He wrote he feared the same for the USA if moderates, conservatives and leftists don't combine under the rubric of one party to oppose the GOP. Since the writer is in Europe, she has more than likely been taught this harsh lesson, too. They see us as acting childish and not understanding just how bad things could become. IDK if it's the real case, but it made me think the Third Reich was not inevitable. It was a failure in the political sphere that led to all that horror. At times, I wonder if the theory of parallel universes is true, and there is a world in which the same choices were available and people chose to be less arrogant and judging and Hitler gave up his ideas after failing to get a majority in the German political establishment, instead of becoming a leader. Imagine where people live with open mindedness, fairness and compassion and never felt such terror that they invented and used the A-Bomb.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) 72. She is a leftist activist for environmental causes, LGBT issues, women's issues. It is a critique of some on the left, but not the left itself. I don't know why people refuse to read the article.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) 68. You obviously missed the point entirelyThe author is on the left. She is not dismissing leftism itself but what she sees as the destructive behavior of some on the left. She is a leftist activist. She believes the point is to make positive change. Now clearly many disagree with that approach, but claiming this is a full scale indictment of leftism itself is simply untrue. Read her bio. She's an activist for LGBT, women's issues and environmental issues.
BainsBane (32,234 posts) 76. She isn't discussing liberalsshe specifies a certain sector of the left, not liberals, and not all of the left. Her one reference to liberals is to talk about a more general focus on domestic as opposed to foreign involvement. There should be no reason to find offense in something that doesn't pertain to one's own behavior. Most PEOPLE do not work to make the world a better place. Most people are not activists. It's much easier to complain and critique than to work to change things, to make the world a better place. All of us can do the latter, only some do the former. The problem is when every effort is met with negativity, it makes it more frustrating for the activists to do the hard work they do.
edbermac (12,164 posts) 67. Jury results.AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service On Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:22 PM an alert was sent on the following post: "A letter to my dismal allies on the US left" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026921753 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS This post insults in the most derogatory manner a huge population of this community. I cannot believe that this has been posted here. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:28 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future. Cannot reply to automated messages
