LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Kowani]

The US violating human rights would not surprise me.

More than China? Yeah, no.

Oh yeah, more than China, probably no. For the record I can't read.

Solved.

[The East Marches II]

The first goal of NATO is to deter conflict by strength. In terms of force ratios and the pathetic nature of our allies. Bit can no longer do that. The second goal is to win. It can not do that at the moment either.

I'll spare you an extended lecture on equipment readiness rates and spending. Instead, I'll make it simple. We lose in every scenario run up. We will be fighting a two front war. We can not afford worthless allies who can't supply their own bullets much less get working planes. Conscription isn't the answer alone. It's integrating multiple armies into one whole that can fight together. We used to have this ability. We do not anymore.

Why don't we have this ability anymore? Assuming NATO's leaders are aware of the issue, and have some idea of how to resolve it, why are steps not being taken?

Because we do not have rational governments led by rational people. We no longer keep serious people in our defense departments. It's a civilization wide competency failing in virtually every Western country at the moment.

[Cisairse]

Why don't we have this ability anymore? Assuming NATO's leaders are aware of the issue, and have some idea of how to resolve it, why are steps not being taken?

Because we do not have rational governments led by rational people. We no longer keep serious people in our defense departments. It's a civilization wide competency failing in virtually every Western country at the moment.

That is quite sad.

[The East Marches II]

Because we do not have rational governments led by rational people. We no longer keep serious people in our defense departments. It's a civilization wide competency failing in virtually every Western country at the moment.

That is quite sad.

It can't last forever. There is some bright spots.

[Novus America]

The first goal of NATO is to deter conflict by strength. In terms of force ratios and the pathetic nature of our allies. Bit can no longer do that. The second goal is to win. It can not do that at the moment either.

I'll spare you an extended lecture on equipment readiness rates and spending. Instead, I'll make it simple. We lose in every scenario run up. We will be fighting a two front war. We can not afford worthless allies who can't supply their own bullets much less get working planes. Conscription isn't the answer alone. It's integrating multiple armies into one whole that can fight together. We used to have this ability. We do not anymore.

Why don't we have this ability anymore? Assuming NATO's leaders are aware of the issue, and have some idea of how to resolve it, why are steps not being taken?

Because we ended conscription, hacked military budgets, while bloating they bureaucracy.
West Germany in the 1980s had as about as many tanks as Russia has today.

And TEN times more than it has today. When you eliminate five whole armored divisions that kind of makes it harder to fight.

Germany alone has a bigger GDP than Russia but cannot build a functioning military, lacking equipment and recruits. Even though it could 30 years ago.

It is a lack of will. We are not willing to make the sacrifices needed to build militaries strong enough.

[Liriena]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

[Kowani]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

Almost as if tribalism is poison or something…

[Liriena]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

Almost as if tribalism is poison or something…

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

You only just worked this out?

[Liriena]

I don't think this is exclusive to "identity politics", mind you. I certainly see a lot of Marxists and post-modernists doing the same: creating spaces which almost nobody would ever feel comfortable approaching because the requirements to be included are increasingly numerous, specific and restrictive.

[Liriena]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

You only just worked this out?

I mean, I've seen that criticism doing the rounds for a loooong time, but I didn't have particularly strong feelings on it until recently.

[Galloism]

Almost as if tribalism is poison or something…

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

Some of it is just damn out there too - like the weird demand from the Seattle group to bring back segregation in medicine and education.

Just.... what?

[Lucja]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

As a side note, this feels like a very loose use of the word theory.

[Proctopeo]

Almost as if tribalism is poison or something…

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

A friend showed me some weird shit she saw on Twitter pertaining to BLM and Juneteenth (I don't have social media); among them were two completely separate threads of black people dropping links for nonblack (presumably, preferably but not exclusively white) people to send them money for "reparations". Is this the sort of stuff you're thinking of, or am I way off the mark here?

[Liriena]

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

Some of it is just damn out there too - like the weird demand from the Seattle group to bring back segregation in medicine and education.

Just.... what?

Things are ｈａｐｐｅｎｉｎｇ really fast so it's obviously hard for the thousands, if not millions of people involved to collectively take a deep breath and try to figure out what they actually need and want for their communities and their future... but still.

[Aureumterra]

I don't think this is exclusive to "identity politics", mind you. I certainly see a lot of Marxists and post-modernists doing the same: creating spaces which almost nobody would ever feel comfortable approaching because the requirements to be included are increasingly numerous, specific and restrictive.

That’s tribalism

[The Marlborough]

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

Some of it is just damn out there too - like the weird demand from the Seattle group to bring back segregation in medicine and education.

Just.... what?

Wait what?

[Liriena]

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

A friend showed me some weird shit she saw on Twitter pertaining to BLM and Juneteenth (I don't have social media); among them were two completely separate threads of black people dropping links for nonblack (presumably, preferably but not exclusively white) people to send them money for "reparations". Is this the sort of stuff you're thinking of, or am I way off the mark here?

I hadn't heard of that, but it's definitely in line with what I was thinking. I was also thinking about the back and forth some people had over stuff like white people joining the protests while admitting that they hadn't realized the extent of systemic racism until now. Or the Instagram "blackout" thing. Or the way in which a lot of BLM supporters eagerly jumped on the "the problem is white leftists trying to turn this into a socialist movement" train, which was functionally indistinguishable from how liberals and conservatives tried to paint all of the bad things as being done by "antifa outsiders".

[Owans]

Can't wait to go yell at more cops for shooting peacefully protesting unarmed kids in my city with beanbags thus giving them brain damage. while literally nothing has happened to hold the cops accountable

one of them was next to a violent protestor who threw an empty waterbottle at a line of riot cops. the other was standing alone in a field with no one within 20 feet of him

[Liriena]

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

A friend showed me some weird shit she saw on Twitter pertaining to BLM and Juneteenth (I don't have social media); among them were two completely separate threads of black people dropping links for nonblack (presumably, preferably but not exclusively white) people to send them money for "reparations". Is this the sort of stuff you're thinking of, or am I way off the mark here?

I'll give credit where it's due: all of the black reactions I saw to that one video of white protesters "apologizing" for their white privilege were very negative, many of them outright calling it "unhealthy".

[Liriena]

Being on Twitter has made me feel like a lot of ostensibly left-wing people have been haphazardly improvising their "theory" on a whim, and that said "theory" seems to exist mostly as a way to justify what, in practice, is a purposefully exclusionary way of doing politics. They don't want to build a coalition. They don't want to foster solidarity. They're not trying to invite people who are not "in the know" into the movement. It all feels self-indulgent and occasionally malicious.

As a side note, this feels like a very loose use of the word theory.

Probably. I was struggling to find a better word.

[Cisairse]

I don't think this is exclusive to "identity politics", mind you. I certainly see a lot of Marxists and post-modernists doing the same: creating spaces which almost nobody would ever feel comfortable approaching because the requirements to be included are increasingly numerous, specific and restrictive.

On the other hand the feds admitting that it's impossible to infiltrate leftist groups because the barrier to entry is so high was a major win for the movement.

[South Odreria 2]

I don't think this is exclusive to "identity politics", mind you. I certainly see a lot of Marxists and post-modernists doing the same: creating spaces which almost nobody would ever feel comfortable approaching because the requirements to be included are increasingly numerous, specific and restrictive.

On the other hand the feds admitting that it's impossible to infiltrate leftist groups because the barrier to entry is so high was a major win for the movement.

Feds confused that the I’m with her buttons didn’t get them through the door

[Liriena]

On the other hand the feds admitting that it's impossible to infiltrate leftist groups because the barrier to entry is so high was a major win for the movement.

Feds confused that the I’m with her buttons didn’t get them through the door

"I voted for Obama three times!", said John Notacop as he walked into the black Marxist-Leninist-Maoist meeting.

[Kowani]

I saw a lot of it particularly over the past couple of weeks with the BLM protests: lots of contradictory demands and recomendations on the role of non-black people during these protests. Lots of, perhaps understandable, but functionally counter-productive criticism of the ways non-black people expressed solidarity with the protests.

The contradictory nature of it all makes sense because the BLM movement isn't organized enough that its adherents could really claim to have a unified theory or praxis, but waaaaay too much of what's been said online reads like people are making it up as they go along, and without really putting a lot of thought into it.

Some of it is just damn out there too - like the weird demand from the Seattle group to bring back segregation in medicine and education.

Just.... what?

Don’t know about the education stuff, but it is empirical fact that white doctors treat black patients worse than they do white ones (on average).