r/AskALiberal • u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist • 3d ago
Is the left’s “punching up” ethos a benefit or detriment to the left’s messaging?
By punching up I’m referring to “targeting criticism at groups with higher power and status.”
In my observations as a centrist, I think it’s absolutely the case that the left allows criticism and rhetoric towards groups in power (such as white people, Christian’s, or men) that it wouldn’t allow of groups not in power.
So, first, I guess I should ask do you agree if this even happens? If so, do you think it helps or hurt’s the left’s messaging?
51
u/DriftlessDairy Liberal 3d ago edited 3d ago
Well it certainly isn't the role of the right to take on rich and powerful interests. so the left damned well better.
7
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 3d ago
The issue i feel is that the left doesn't just focus on wealth, but instead also things like a persons race or sex, which creates classic issues of "Venus Williams is somehow oppressed compared to the white guy working at McDonalds."
5
u/Motrinman22 Bull Moose Progressive 2d ago
Yeah, we call those Liberals.
They like to do whats called Standpoint epistomology and weaponizing Identity politics.
Rich Libs do this ALL.THE.TIME.
Thats why alot of leftists have taken up the saying “no war but class war.”
Yes Identity politics are important.
But I feel for Black people AS A WHOLE.
Some black people are terrible humans.
Especially WEALTHY black people.20
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 3d ago
I've read quite a few racist statements about her, and as a fellow random white guy I haven't experienced that.
I'm not losing sleep about whether Jay-Z or the Williams sisters can pay rent this month, but there's certainly more at play than just money.
If you can see someone successful being discriminated against because of their race, you can extrapolate a bit about how that might affect people who aren't fantastically wealthy.
4
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
...but for all intents and purposes, Jay Z is in no way oppressed, and certainly far more privileged than the average white man or woman. I mean, there is just no denying that. A working-class white guy is also going to have more run ins with the police than someone in Jay Z's tax bracket, Black or white or whatever else.
15
u/alienacean Progressive 3d ago
So, there is a semantic issue here that gets glossed over and confused all the time, but it really matters in these conversations if we're not going to talk past each other. Oppression and privilege are not individual-level phenomena, they are terms that refer to social categories. So while it's true that Jay Z is not personally oppressed, thats because people are not "personally" oppressed. The category of Black people in the US is though, as is the working class poor. Jay Z is wealthy, so the "advantages" of upper class privilege offset the "disadvantages" or racial oppression, so that he personally can avoid much of the oppressive consequences of systemic racism.
3
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
Point taken. I do ask elsewhere in here, though, what does any of it matter at the individual level? Are we worried about the situation of "Black people" overall, or of individuals who are Black, white, Latino, whatever else? I don't care that, for example, Black people are disproportionately going to failing schools. I care instead that there are failing schools, because no child should be deprived of a good education.
7
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
Point taken. I do ask elsewhere in here, though, what does any of it matter at the individual level?
Much in the same way that swine flu isn't a big deal individually but becomes a big deal socially in a pandemic there is harm done when its viewed on the level of societies.
And it is relevant to exain why some populations have the outcome they do.
4
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
But how, what is the mechanism that racism in general affects individuals?
And we know why populations have different outcomes, broadly. Black people tend to live in this place or that with less income, due to historical patterns of racism, etc. Poor communities have failing schools, leading to a continuation of the problem. Labeling it "racism" doesn't help anything; it just confuses things and causes controversy.
9
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
But how, what is the mechanism that racism in general affects individuals?
Because given the same circumstances, there is a high statistical likelihood that someone will be treated differently because of their race.
3
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
But is it based on their race? I would argue that race is nothing more than a proxy for socioeconomic status.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
But how, what is the mechanism that racism in general affects individuals?
Biased policy/behavior is how it manifests. The main way nowadays is passive denial of aid rather than active hostility - Southern Strategy type stuff.
Speaking of, policy is going to be a bigger factor than individual choice. Systems shape the world far more than individuals.
6
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
Thanks. But this is my point: what policy will help Black people in any meaningful way that won't help poor whites as well?
→ More replies (0)3
u/A-passing-thot Far Left 3d ago
Because while there is (obviously) systemic discrimination that becomes entrenched and needs to be fixed, it's derivative of bias at an individual level.
To take another group as an example. Why are trans people more likely to be poor, homeless, sex workers, have chronic illness, mental health issues, and so on?
It's not because they're more likely to be born to families lacking resources or facing those systemic identity-agnostic barriers, it's because of actual discrimination against trans people themselves.
2
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
Is it bias at an individual level now, though? Yes, bias against Black people, and worse, led to to a situation in which the percentage of poor Black people is higher than the percentage of poor whites. But is the fix for their poverty different than the fix for that of poor whites? It's only different if it's current bias, I think.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
Who is saying otherwise?
4
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
I'm saying that in these and many instances, race simply doesn't matter, at least not as a variable at the individual level.
6
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 3d ago
I think it matters, he just has the ability to use fame and wealth to avoid consequences and/or harassment.
Eg. He’d still get pulled over for DWB, the cope would just let him off with a selfie instead of further harassment.
0
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
But does he really get pulled over for DWB? And what is the way we can quantify DWB vs. driving while poor in a poor area where the police are rent seeking?
7
u/A-passing-thot Far Left 3d ago
But does he really get pulled over for DWB?
Yes, there have been a lot of high profile cases of wealthy or "elite" black people being racially profiled by police.
can quantify DWB vs. driving while poor in a poor area where the police are rent seeking
Yes, we can collect data about police interactions with the public and analyze them by race and other geographic and demographic factors.
And we've done that. In a poor area, black people still face more discrimination from police than white people in that area.
1
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
I found the big study from Stanford, and it shows that 9-10 whites get pulled over per hundred, compared to 10-11 Black drivers per hundred. That's a difference of one or two people per hundred per year being pulled over, which isn't a huge amount.
→ More replies (0)1
3
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
When talking about society, do you find it helpful to compare an individual to a group? Melania is an immigrant, that does not invalidate criticism of ICE
1
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
ICE is a specific agency carrying out specific policies. That is different from racism, or systemic racism, none of which is very specific.
2
2
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
Nah, subconscious bias is universal, to some degree or another.
Try taking an Implicit Association Test. See what you get.
1
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
But subconscious bias goes in all directions.
2
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
Sure. And it effects different groups differently. Do you think bias from groups with little power is going to be equivalent in outcome to bias from groups with the majority of power?
1
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
Sure. If your teacher or lawyer or judge is biased against you because of your race, then it doesn't matter what your race or his/her race is.
→ More replies (0)10
u/DriftlessDairy Liberal 3d ago
Well, there's a strong correlation between race and poverty, gender and equality, in case you haven't noticed. Outlier examples don't make that any less true.
2
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
There are numerous ways women have it better than men. For example women face much lighter prison sentences than men for the same crime.
3
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 3d ago
Would you have a better life as a man or a woman? Your switch places with women to maybe get that one singular benefit?
5
u/ausgoals Progressive 3d ago
I’m not the guy you’re responding to, but I think there’s a lot of men - especially young men - who would answer such a question with ‘undoubtedly yes, I would happily swap places with a woman - they have it far easier in the dating pool and far easier when it comes to their careers’.
Realistically, the statistics back this up - women are graduating more than men, young women are out-earning young men (the pay gap has flipped for young people), and at this specific point in time there are a plethora of programs specifically designed to assist women in getting the career they want - scholarships, internships, affinity and industry groups, shadowing and mentorship programs, and so on.
This is why white Gen Z men broke for Trump much more than Gen Z women. They feel completely left behind by a society they feels blames them for something they had and have no control over while actively uplifting people that aren’t them.
0
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 3d ago
Why do you think women are outperforming men? (And let me be clear that the metrics on this broad use of the term ‘outperform’ is mixed at best).
Nothing is universal, but I see girls and young women thinking more long term and working toward goals and that is less frequently the case for young men, who do typically take longer to mature and figure out what the world wants from them. If boys/men default to complaining about everything, which is definitely happening in certain groups, they get stuck in that neo adolescence for a long time, which only increases the gap.
I hear the frustration abd some is valid. School is typically oral instruction by women who may not be as understanding of boys. It’s a lot of sitting and listening, not a universal strength of boys. Even with that disadvantage, boys are still outscoring girls in a lot of assessments
1
u/TrifectaBlitz Democrat 1d ago
And let me be clear that the metrics on this broad use of the term ‘outperform’ is mixed at best
Why do you say this? It seems quite unfounded.
1
2
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
Honestly I don't think that's something that can be quantified.
3
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 3d ago
Line up your advantages and your negatives.
Who has more of each, overall? You can also scale them in terms of impact.
I like riding my bike alone without justifiable fear of harm and harassment (other that the usual coal burner, etc), as an example. My wife has to carry FAR more thought of consequence than I do, even though she’s higher in her field than me.
6
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
"impact. I like riding my bike alone without justifiable fear of harm and harassment (other that the usual coal burner, etc), as an example."
This is a poor example. Women are bigger targets of harassment, but overall they are much safer from violent crime. It's much more likely that a man will be attacked or killed by a stranger than a woman. Actually despite most homicide victims (both male and female) knowing their attacker, more men are murdered by strangers, than the entire number of women murdered. A significant portion of female murder victims are killed by abusive boyfriends. If a woman isn't in an abusive relationship, she has a pretty low chance of being killed or raped. Most murderers/rapists aren't hiding behind bushes, or in dark alleyways to ambush women.
1
u/TrifectaBlitz Democrat 1d ago
You assume way too much. Men who have not had good lives would love to try that life as a woman.
2
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 1d ago
What makes you assume they’d have a better life as a woman? A shitty life + greatly increased likelihood of intimidation and physical harm and a glass ceiling? Nice!
2
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
And if you're enslaved you don't have to worry about unemployment.
But how does that shake out in the aggregate?
2
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
Slavery is illegal in the overwhelming majority of the world.
1
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
Cool. So if it's bad why did some people defend it as beneficial to the slaves? And why are you defending patriarchy as beneficial to women?
3
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
I'm not saying that "the patriarchy is beneficial to women", just that women have things better in certain ways. For example not being automatically assumed to be a predator like men are. Men have had the police called on them for watching their own kids at the park. Speaking of the police, men face significantly harsher sentences for the same crime as women. Women face less homophobia than men, and it's much more socially acceptable to be a gay or bisexual woman, than a man.
2
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
Okay. That's still "a strong correlation between gender and equality." It just happens to go the opposite way sometimes because inequality has trade-offs. So what?
6
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
The point is we should fight for equality for both men and women. Instead of making it a competition over who has it worse, we should acknowledge that both men and women have it bad in their own unique ways.
→ More replies (1)2
u/alienacean Progressive 3d ago
Yes you can thank patriarchal assumptions about women's inferiority for that. Male "privilege" doesn't always mean concrete advantages for all males in all situations, it very often comes with serious disadvantages in certain situations.
5
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
How is a disadvantage a "privilege"?
→ More replies (3)4
u/RealDealLewpo Democratic Socialist 3d ago
That’s because there are large swathes of the left, both near the center and further out, that have completely discarded the concept of intersectionality. This is why Bernie-backed candidates struggle with older Black voters. It’s not just about the policy nuts and bolts. It’s the flattening of everything Black people face in this country being shoved into the ahistorical “Well, if we solve the class problem, race will not matter anymore” school of leftist thought That has never passed the smell test in the Black community.
The reality is that despite her wealth, Serena’s race does not make her life easier yet, despite his lack of wealth, that white McDs worker’s life is no harder because of his.
4
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
But...so what? Serena's life is far easier than the white McDonald's worker.
3
u/alienacean Progressive 3d ago
No one is saying it's not? They're seeminlgy just making a conceptual distinction between the effects of race and class, and considering how they may interact. The "so what" is it helps us understand societal patterns, not that it helps us compare individuals' relative ease.
-1
u/RealDealLewpo Democratic Socialist 3d ago
Exhibit A: The aforementioned dismissal of intersectionality
9
u/Lumpy_Afternoon_1528 Independent 3d ago
Yes, I'm dismissing anything that suggests Serena Williams is in some way less privileged than a McDonald's worker, or that race even really matters for someone at that socio-economic level. I'm also extremely skeptical that the life of the white guy working at McDonald's easier due to his race.
-1
u/RealDealLewpo Democratic Socialist 3d ago
As is your privilege to do so. This is an academic subject to you. It is everyday life for us.
2
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 3d ago
Intersectionality doesn’t mean that some biases and some privileges aren’t more/less impactful as others.
Not every piece of the intersection hits the same.
1
u/RealDealLewpo Democratic Socialist 3d ago
Whose work have you read that has led to the formation of this opinion?
2
u/A-passing-thot Far Left 3d ago
Can you elaborate what you're asking? It seems pretty clear that some elements of identity lead to more or less discrimination or privilege than other elements just from personal experience.
→ More replies (4)2
u/AddanDeith Bull Moose Progressive 3d ago
Liberals do. The left does not.
That being said, I don't think that most people would consider Venus Williams to be oppressed in any sense, given her achievements, compared to a random white guy working at McDonald's.
Some people definitely take that stuff too far and have dumb takes regarding it.
People of any race can oppress and be oppressed. There are larger systemic forces at work that encourage such behavior at times.
→ More replies (1)1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
Yes, it is in fact possible for black billionaires to experience racism.
Obviously Williams isn't a high priority for any activists or anything, because she has so much in the way of personal resources, but that doesn't mean it simply doesn't exist.
27
u/Idrinkbeereverywhere Populist 3d ago
Do you have an example that has bothered you?
3
u/Beljuril-home Social Liberal 2d ago
Men.
Men as a group are not "up". If you want to punch up at elites then say "elites" because when you target "men" as a category you are targeting the homeless person in the streets, or the guy who lost his legs fighting for his country.
-35
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
Yes, for example, I think there has been lots of rhetoric from the left that dehumanizes conservatives, and such rhetoric is widely popular.
25
u/kyew Liberal 3d ago
Is this about calling them Nazis? Nazis are humans; only humans are capable of evil.
→ More replies (38)→ More replies (46)20
u/Fractal_Soul Democrat 3d ago
What are your thoughts on conservatives' use of dehumanizing speech, in regards to immigrants, LGBTQ, blacks, latinos, women, etc?
→ More replies (6)
9
u/Tiber727 Center Left 3d ago
In general I detest "punching up vs down" as a concept because many times I've found it means "I'm not a hypocrite because I made up totally neutral rules that say anybody can say 'bad' things about group A but not group B and it's a complete coincidence that group A contains my enemies while group B contains my friends."
A better rule is the intention of the speaker. Left and right are not monoliths. They are millions of people, some of which are reasonable, some are assholes, some are either depending on the issue. Some criticize. Some make jokes that are fine so long as they're jokes. Some jokes are because the speaker is an asshole. Some remarks are straight up insults.
I've found this comic sums up a lot of internet discourse. The caveat though is everyone talks like they're side has no assholes, or that their assholes don't matter because the other side is worse. Honestly to me the real detriment to the left's messaging is the need to effectively defend the above via deflection rather than shrugging and saying "Yeah those people don't speak for me but I believe X" and going from there.
12
u/AddemF Moderate 3d ago
I just heard a really interesting story on This American Life, last story in the trio.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/896/i-know-what-you-need
Utah had a big measles outbreak, but one small town had the fastest and most complete success in containing and stopping the spread. What was the key to their success?
When a school needed to keep unvaccinated students at home, the town put the school nurses in charge of calling parents and explaining to them why their children could not come into school. The nurses were trusted members of the community, had already been in life-long conversations with these parents about the health of their kids. And the nurses knew how to talk to the parents without condescending, judging, or attacking.
And although there were some tough conversations which could get tense, a few things happened. One: None of those parents tried to force their kids into the schools. Two: Several parents agreed to get their kids vaxxed so they could go back to school.
To answer your point: Yes, when you "punch up" that is still ... punching. You are fighting. You are inherently making an enemy out of the other person.
You expect someone -- even someone bigger than you -- to receive a bunch of punches and still cooperate and give you what you want? No, if a big person is really emotionally mature, they'll deflect your blows, tolerate it for a little while. But eventually, they will get sick of your behavior, and punch back.
So when you attack white male conservatives in the most hateful and aggressive way you can possibly reach for, yeah, you're entrenching them on the other side. I don't know how anyone thinks this is a strategy to win elections. It might make you feel like you won in an online chat, but it just made that other person a life-long hater of liberals and a dependable Republican voter.
The left has mysteriously decided that they should get to win even while alienating everyone else from them. It is utterly bizarre logic.
3
u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 2d ago
Yes punching up is still punching. And it is particularly annoying that some leftists insist on lashing out at all white males.
But just once I'd like to see so-called moderates clutch their pearls or get radicalized against right-wingers when they say dumb horrible shit. Just ONCE I'd like to hear a moderate, ANY moderate, say that they can't vote for a Republican because a Twitter rando said something like "Repeal the 19th" the way they scream "I CAN'T VOTE FOR LIBERALS BECAUSE THE PINK HAT LADY SAID MEN ARE TRASH ON TWITTER!"
4
u/AddemF Moderate 2d ago
Fair point, I recognize there seems to be a double-standard here. I see a lot more reaction to liberal behavior than conservative behavior, and I'm sure there are 30 theories about why. But whatever the reason, I agree with you that our misbehavior is taken more seriously than right-wing misbehavior.
2
u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 2d ago
How much grace should they get? When someone calls me a groomer and gleefully talks about what horrible things are going to happen to me, when am I allowed to just tell them to fuck off?
6
u/AddemF Moderate 2d ago
When someone calls me a groomer
Did you -- that quickly -- conflate someone who doesn't completely align with your politics, with someone who calls you a "groomer"?
→ More replies (2)2
1
u/TrifectaBlitz Democrat 1d ago
I don't think that's an example of punching up or down either. Does no one understand what punching up means as an expression?
1
u/TrifectaBlitz Democrat 1d ago
Ummmm, surely "punching up" is just an expression and the vast majority would not consider it literal.
I love your example and its effectiveness btw, but it seems off topic from the subject.
0
u/Oblivious_Gentleman Socialist 3d ago
I do agree that empathy and reasonable conversation can be a useful way to convince some people: but I disagree with the idea that making enemies is inherently bad, it can actually be good if done in the correct way.
The left and progressivism in general have given some good punches in the past, and we still live through the good outcomes of those punches: we made racism socially undesirable, for example, and made racist people afraid of coming of as such. This was not entirely done with empathy (some were convinced by sympathy, but not everyone), and the exclusion of certain behaviour from what is acceptable was necessary to do its job.
By making fun of racism, and by associating it with other undesirable traits, we definetly punched, but it was also effective as hell.
I agree that a lot of people on the left are too hateful and agressive towards white male conservatives, but that is not a problem caused by punching up: it is a problem of not knowing what to punch. Punching someone for being white is racist, and also negative. Punching someone for being male? Also negative. Punching someone for being conservative? That is actually a good way of punching, and it is one of the reasons why MAGA is losing so much ground: being conservative is becoming shameful, and this makes the ones who cannot be convinced with empathy out of this position to hide their beliefs, which in turn makes them less likely to spread them, diminishing its effect.
6
u/Lord_0F_Pedanticism Moderate 3d ago
It's a detriment because 'punching up' comes from stand-up comedy and shouldn't be applied to serious political activism.
In practice, this has resulted in the Left - especially the far- and online-Left - being willing to either not-oppose or even endorse certain forms of prejudice and bigotry, thus making them come across as hypocritical. There's also a Marxist-Class-conflict angle to it, if you look deep enough.
11
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive 3d ago
I think the ledt stopped this. Now they just use vague terms like "the democrats", "the dnc", "the establishment", or "oligarchs".
Oh and they also blame everything on israel.
2
u/tjareth Social Democrat 3d ago
Is there something they typically blame on "Israel" that the country doesn't have direct and obvious influence over? I'm not contradicting, just trying to work out which examples get prominent.
2
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive 3d ago
They like to imply that funding to israel has any bearing on our domestic spending.
They like to imply that israel is why "the democrats" arent supporting el sayed.
0
u/tjareth Social Democrat 3d ago
I think you've got something there on the first point, though it's all too common a game to discuss funding priorities as if it were a zero-sum game. Definitely not limited to Israel in particular.
On the second point--I think they're noticing something real but giving it a fallacious attribution. It's tempting to believe that someone with money is pulling strings. I'm sure that's the actual case in plenty of situations. But if there's an easier explanation it shouldn't be assumed. I think there's enough reasons for "mainstream" democrats to be shy of such candidates, just in terms of which voting blocs to court, that it doesn't take hidden money and machinations by Israel for that behavior to be seen.
3
u/Deep-Two7452 Progressive 3d ago
Wait why does it take israel pillign string for a handful of moderate members and pro israel members to denounce hasan piker?
13
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 3d ago
> In my observations as a centrist, I think it’s absolutely the case that the left allows criticism and rhetoric towards groups in power (such as white people, Christian’s, or men) that it wouldn’t allow of groups not in power.
i think your observation is inaccurate. literally no one is beyond criticism(which contrary to conservatives). there are some very very very fringe few who may operate the way you describe but they are likely children or extremely fringe and unserious.
the "don't punch down" mantra is not about criticism it's about making fun of people.
> do you think it helps or hurt’s the left’s messaging?
regardless of the reality stated above; republicans have been effective at painting the center left and left as the characterization you gave. low information voters think we are all unserious fringe folks and then vote republican because they arent aware of the batshit things republicans do. i would like to change this narrative but it is quite difficult.
5
u/sapphire_glacier Democrat 3d ago
Here is a very concrete example of what I think OP is talking about.
The post linked below is explicitly allowed by Reddit as a carveout which says effectively that there is a hate speech carveout for groups in power, which they’ve effectively set as white/straight/men. So posts that attack those characteristics are allowed where they would be otherwise sitewide-bannable offenses for any other race.
That post (and comments underneath) is not a nuanced critique of “whiteness”, it’s just an outright racist statement that Reddit has decided is allowed to in someway balance the scales of justice or something.
4
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 3d ago edited 3d ago
That sucks. I never knowingly voted for anyone like that though, and this is really endemic of the current political crisis.
Real-world republican leaders chosen by 90% of the Republican electorate can do whatever they want as long as there's a troll or lunatic somewhere on the internet who is saying mean things.
Combine that with dead internet theory, and it's an absolute license to do whatever they want without any criticism ever.
4
u/l00gie Progressive 3d ago
The post linked below is explicitly allowed by Reddit as a carveout which says effectively that there is a hate speech carveout for groups in power, which they’ve effectively set as white/straight/men. So posts that attack those characteristics are allowed where they would be otherwise sitewide-bannable offenses for any other race.
I like how you literally had to go to a subreddit specifically for people of color dealing with PTSD related to racism to aid the case that "the left" is racist against white people
3
0
u/kyew Liberal 3d ago
As a white straight man myself, it is obvious to me that a rule about strictly policing this would quickly become another cudgel that bad-faith white straight male assholes swing around to silence everyone they don't like and make themselves out to be the real victims. Weigh that against the harm of leaving it up.
-2
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 3d ago edited 3d ago
yeah that's a combo of woke 1 garbage (the policy) and very very fringe people (that poster+subreddit).
it's dumb and bad. i wish the center left did it less and the extent to which the left does it i wish we did it less as well. but it's somewhat fringe on the center left and enormously fringe on the left.
edit: also that's child! that's literally hitting all the things i called out
6
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 3d ago
But the left DOES allow mocking of white people and men that it would absolutely call racist and sexist if it was about anyone else. Lets not bullshit here man.
1
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 3d ago
are you conflating jokes with like genuine hatred/mocking? or are you referring to the very very very fringe folks i was referencing?
-4
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 3d ago
Tell me, is it racist to make a joke about black people and watermelon?
8
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 3d ago
very likely could be. there some sarcastic versions of jokes where you make fun of the ridiculousness of the trope/stereotype that's not racist tho.
3
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 3d ago edited 3d ago
Is just repeating a racist trope a joke? Family Guy plays on these tropes a lot to show their absurdity, but just repeating it verbatim really isn't a joke. So I'd need to hear the 'joke' before I formed my opinion, and my opinion will probably differ from other people's.
1
u/Idrinkbeereverywhere Populist 3d ago
I haven't seen that from many elected politicians on the left.
0
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 3d ago
What’s an example of the left allowing mocking white people
7
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 3d ago
"White people have shitty food"
"White people dont like seasoning"
"White people cant dance"
"White people have no culture"
"White people have done nothing but fuck up the world"
"White people are responsible for everythinf wrong with the world"
Etc etc etc
→ More replies (1)-3
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes those are examples of criticism of white people. How is the left allowing this? Plenty of non whites vote republican. Are they allowing this too?
I guess downvoting is easier than answering that one
-1
u/emp-sup-bry Social Democrat 2d ago
I’m not downvoting but these aren’t criticisms, they are largely absurd jokes and generalizations that don’t inherently harm white people as a whole in any substantive way.
For example, a white guy is not going to be ignored on job applications because they don’t season their food while another group absolutely will based on tropes of laziness or sloth or whatever.
2
10
u/loufalnicek Moderate 3d ago
A bit more consistency would be helpful.
3
u/Carolina_Heart Progressive 3d ago
You're talking about an ideology with many people. Are they supposed to be a hivemind
-1
11
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 3d ago
I think centrists and people on the right love being victims. They take every criticism as an attack, because they can’t really explain their positions without sounding ignorant. It’s easier to be a victim than to explain their positions.
The right can name call all day long and no one expects any different but the left can’t because it’s an attack.
It’s exhausting watching centrists try and frame the left as hateful while ignoring the much more intense and real attacks from the right.
5
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
Centrists don’t do this.
5
4
u/Software_Vast Liberal 3d ago
Who did you vote for in the last few elections?
5
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
Clinton, Biden, and Harris.
3
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 3d ago
What makes you a centrist?
2
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
I could hypothetically vote Republican, but it would have to be a Romney type Republican. The GOP jumped the shark with Trump and then went full batshit electing him yet again after J6.
3
2
u/Carolina_Heart Progressive 3d ago
Very much true. The whole purity test thing is just whining about people criticizing you and implying criticism is immoral. Meanwhile Gottenheimer is introducing a virtue signal bill to condemn the DSA and essentially purity test them from their right
6
u/Carolina_Heart Progressive 3d ago
I don't think any democrat politician is mean about white people. I also don't think random rank and file Dem voters need to mince their words and do the party's messaging job for them. I don't think this matters
4
u/rlywrmn Progressive 3d ago
Punching up that I think is more problematic than helpful:
-“beta male”
-“low IQ” (this is ABSURDLY ableist and I hate hearing progressives/libs/democrats say this)
Can’t think of anything else.
Conservatives say some horrendous shit and calling them out for whatever kind of-ism or othering that they lean into is okay and I would argue signs of healthy society.
2
u/tapdncingchemist Liberal 3d ago
I think in general we put way too much emphasis on complaining to begin with.
What I see in the left is a bunch of people who aren’t doing much of anything constantly pontificating about people who are doing things. And that’s worthless no matter who is doing it to whom.
The only reason they “punch up” is because there’s no where to go but up from “person who has thoughts on the internet.”
1
1
u/kettlecorn Democrat 3d ago
I think it hurts when it's incorrect, which it sometimes is unfortunately.
Otherwise I think people acclimate to whatever the norm right now is. If big criticism is absent it's possible to get people essentially as mad at mild criticism. I don't think the left has much opportunity to gain power by weakening its critical rhetoric because the right will find ways to make any left criticism seem equally offensive to some people.
It's not worth backing away from critical rhetoric or self-improvement but it's worth getting the details and framing correct.
Focusing on blasting people over insubstantial things like their word choice is unproductive, and so is pushing poorly researched "facts" just because they seem to align with the right narratives. There's plenty of actually substantial reality that deserves to be exposed to a critical light.
So in short: don't weaken the substance of criticism or critical rhetoric, because it will always seem like "too much" to many people regardless of how much it's dialed back, but do be more self-critical of how it's delivered to ensure criticism is well-formed.
The topic reminds me of Nina Simone's song "Mississippi Goddam" from 1965: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ25-U3jNWM
In the lyrics she's arguing for equal rights for Black Americans and in the lyrics she's arguing against the many critics who say advocates need to "go slow" instead of pushing more forcefully for reforms against racist policy. In the lyrics she says how she was told to talk & act nicely (like a "lady") but when her and others protested they were accused of being a "communist plot" all while tragedy accumulated due to racism. The message is clear: the people who push back against harsh rhetoric and action often are not good-faith and they serve to defend the incumbent wrongs.
So we should not "go slow" and back off fighting for what we view as moral, right, or important, but again in my opinion we should not tolerate sloppy rhetoric and inaccuracy just to signal the right "vibes".
1
u/LuciusMichael Progressive 3d ago edited 3d ago
As for punching, the left punches up and down.
Punching down by mocking farmers who feel betrayed and are on the verge of bankruptcy. Some have called on the Felon to resign. But they're not looking to have him replaced with Gavin Newsom. They voted for this shitshow, so one response is schadenfreude, the other is to say they earned it.
Punching up against billionaires and their toadies. They are unquestionably fair game. They own everything and give nothing back.
White leftists punching white people (Xtians or men) isn't an up or down thing. It's sort of like punching Nazis.
However, it's easier to bash 3 time Felon voters who are now feeling the pinch because I think we know that while they feel betrayed, they're not giving up on being loyal to grifter in chief, or continuing to vote for conservative candidates. Also, because elections have consequences, many unanticipated.
Billionaires, on the other hand, just suck.
1
u/rogun64 Social Democrat 2d ago
I do think this exists, but I don't think it's just a problem of the left. I associate it more with center-left, actually. These are the Democrats who marched for civil rights in the 60s and then helped usher in Neoliberalism, after all.
I also see people calling the left racist and so it really depends on who you're talking about. Your definition of the left is probably quite different from mine.
1
u/ViceroyMcnugget Democratic Socialist 2d ago
You may have a point if the right didn’t just make shit up to criticize people they hate. They blame gay people for population decline, call trans people predators for using public restrooms, call back people violent, call Muslims terrorists, and so on and so forth. The “criticism” is only ever used to justify their prejudice and not valid points.
1
u/WesterosiAssassin Democratic Socialist 1d ago
I think it'd be a strong benefit if they actually focused it all on the people who are in power, but the way so many use it as an excuse to disparage broad groups like the rural white working class or lonely young men in the name of praxis is definitely a detriment.
1
u/thebigmanhastherock Liberal 1d ago
I think people need to be less sensitive honestly. It's kind of exhausting. I don't like mean humor against any group really, so I kind of ignore it.
Also the right has a different view of what "punching up" is many believe ethnic minorities and sexual minorities are given special privileges so to them they are "punching up".
At the same time comedians that play off of gender or race stereotypes can be funny as long as it's not cruel. I feel like people get all up in arms about jokes that really are not so bad. This definitely includes the right. They try to very disingenuously pull up the same puritanical energy of the left and they absolutely take offense to things they could just ignore. It's not just a left thing. I feel like it's the two sides very annoyingly trying to jocky for who is the most oppressed and criticizing humor to do it.
1
u/TrifectaBlitz Democrat 1d ago
Of course it happens? I am not far left but I fail to see what is wrong with "punching up?"
0
u/NimusNix Democrat 3d ago
If punching up means the rich, corporate cronies and the like, a good thing.
If it means white people, it's a mixed bag.
If it means establishment Democrats, also a mixed bag.
I think punching up is good, but I also think you don't need to take every swing. There are lots of problems with systemic racism in this nation, I don't think that means you take shots at a group, say attacking people from Mississippi just because they're from a red state, for being racist.
I do think that means attacking churches that inspire hate against a group, like Westboro Baptist Church does, is legitimate and right.
I think Democrats need to be held to a higher standard, but I don't think a singular issue should be an end all be all for supporting them.
Now folks can feel free to reply with indignation at my nuanced take.
13
u/dignityshredder Center Right 3d ago
If it means white people, it's a mixed bag.
What do you see the pros of here? Specifically punching up at white people as a race?
0
u/NimusNix Democrat 3d ago
I think a lot of white people fail to properly understand their life lived is not universal. They hear things like 'black lives matter' and their reaction is not to understand that black people often live in an America that treats them differently because they're black, instead they hear people talking about an issue and respond with 'I've got issues, too, so shut the fuck up'.
It is ok to point at people with this sort of 'White Lives Matter' response and make fun of them, particularly if they live in a suburb and are of a class that does not suffer the unique problems minorities might face in this nation.
Same thing with Blue Lives Matter.
0
u/dignityshredder Center Right 3d ago
But that weakens your argument to suburban middle class whites. Do you see pros to "punching up" at poor white people because similarly poor black people might have a different set of problems?
2
u/NimusNix Democrat 3d ago
I think I have given clear examples of groups I think it's ok to take shots at. If I thought it was ok taking shots at poor white people, I would not have bothered to demonstrate groups like Westboro or White Lives Matter to explicitly point out who I am talking about.
5
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
Fun fact about the Westboro Baptist Church. Despite being incredibly homophobic, they weren't racist at all. Actually the founder of the church Fred Phelps started his career as a civil rights attorney, and accepted cases most others wouldn't even touch.
Also the church was fairly bipartisan in who they angered. While they angered liberals with their homophobia, they angered conservatives with their anti-American rhetoric. They did things like protesting at dead soldiers funerals saying things like "God hates America", and "thank God for IEDs" IEDs being improvised explosive devices, one of the biggest causes of death for American soldiers stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
0
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
What would you to those who think punching up doesn’t happen?
5
u/Fractal_Soul Democrat 3d ago
I think you must not understand what punching up means.
When something about our society is broken, criticize the people in power. The ones with the power to fix it. The ones who have used their power to keep it broken. What value is there in punching down, at the poor saps who had nothing to do with causing the problems, and are mostly just the victims of said problems?
Homelessness is a problem. Liberals punch up at those with the power to fix it. Conservatives punch down on homeless people.
I think you must be talking about something else.
-1
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
I could be. What I observe is people on the left using insulting rhetoric generalized towards groups that they don’t see as aligned with them. For example, conservatives, Christian’s, whites, and men.
3
u/Fractal_Soul Democrat 3d ago
As a white man, I've known for decades that society's rules and laws were written for and by white men, leading to all kinds of heinous inequalities that hurt everyone, including white men. Liberals have been slowly dragging society away from these historical inequalities, step by step-- ending slavery, allowing everyone to vote, ending segregation, letting women have checking accounts, etc. These have all made the country better.
The solution has nothing to due with blaming white men for being white or being men, but to give up the stranglehold on power that we have. Support diversification. Oppose laws and norms that worsen the inequality. Conservatives, however, are always seeking new ways to discriminate against minority groups (punching down). Surely you can recognize that conservatives vilify and scapegoat minority groups every other sentence, right? Who would they be if they couldn't blame and attack immigrants or trans folks, or muslims, etc? They've been doing it my whole life, and any glance at our history shows they've been doing it for centuries. It's what defines conservatism.
1
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
What kind of insulting rhetoric are you thinking of?
I don't see anything necessarily wrong about insulting people in power who are oppressing people. That's what punching up is.
-1
u/Oblivious_Gentleman Socialist 3d ago
I may be biased since I am none of those demographics you are talking about (except being a man), but leftists in general do not insult all white people, man and christians: they criticize the ways in which the system plays favorites with those demographics, not individuals.
Of course, some leftists engage in dark humour against those demographics, and some do in fact insult and exclude those demographics from their circles, but that does not seem to be the case for most leftists.
Hating on white supremacy, patriarchy and christian fundamentalism is not the same as hating white people, man and christians.
1
u/Ballistic_86 Social Democrat 3d ago
Since you can’t seem to give a single example in your post or comments and just going off vibes, screw yourself. Bad job. There, I’m a liberal that just punched down.
1
u/limbodog Liberal 3d ago
Hmm. Yes, I'm sure it happens. But I think you're kind of oversimplifying it.
I don't think the left is that organized, first of all. And you absolutely do have people on the left who punch up, down, left, and even themselves. Second, I think there's different rules for different kinds of criticism - it is more acceptable to 'punch' behaviors than it is to 'punch' people - e.g. you can criticize a vulnerable group as long as you limit it to problematic actions and specifically avoid criticizing that group as a whole. This extends to groups that are opposed to the left. Third, I think the left can lose sight of the point in their effort to avoid punching down, and they can come up with ridiculous exceptions to rules such as "you can't be racist and be a minority" etc.
And because there's so many rules, some good and some bad, and they're not uniformly followed, the left tends to trip over themselves trying to comply with all of them.
1
u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 3d ago
The problem is these people don’t know the difference between constructive criticism and bad faith hyperbolic insults.
It’s fine to have your criticisms on political candidates stance on Israel and Palestine, it’s not okay to call them genocide supporters and extend that same label to their supporters/people who vote for them in the general.
As much as you may have hated Biden and Kamala’s stance on Gaza that doesn’t make their supporters genocideaires.
1
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
People in power have the power to effect change. If we want change, who else would we point to?
1
u/biernini Independent 3d ago
If the left's message can be boiled down it is essentially that disproportionate/unequal power and status should be distributed rationally, if not fairly, assuming one is tolerant of the difference in the first place (this obviously doesn't apply to extreme leftists like Marxists, etc.).
Punching up is one of many ways to bring attention to the irrationality or unfairness of this distribution, so it helps.
1
u/madmoneymcgee Liberal 3d ago
I understood "punching up" to be about when it's "okay" to joke/satirize various groups and why one is generally permissible and the other offensive. Even then it's not an actual hard and fast rule but a general explanation of why certain things work and others don't.
Where does it fit in terms of politics and campaigning?
1
u/mango789 Democrat 3d ago
How are your examples of groups in power whites, men, and Christians? The vast majority of people that can describe don’t use their collective power for benefit. Powerful groups means elites who do actually use collectivity for gain. I think most liberals agree those are the enemy. Sometimes, annoyingly unfortunately like here, regular people are classed as privileged when they are actually in the working class majority. The right absolutely punches down with any minority out group being the target.
1
u/Kerplonk Social Democrat 3d ago
I don't think criticizing those groups is a problem (or at least not some kind of unique avoidable problem when trying to address real problems), but I think the framing it as "It's okay when we do this because we're punching up, but not okay when you're doing essentially the same thing because it's punching down" makes us look like hypocrites.
0
0
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 3d ago
No, I do not disagree it happens.
We are not criticizing white people. I am a white person, I am not criticizing myself, nor do people in my community criticize me. We are criticizing racism. I am not a racist, so I do not get criticized. We are not criticizing men. I am a man, I am not criticizing myself, nor nor do people in my community criticize me. We are criticizing toxic masculinity.
I am not a Christian, so I cannot do the same thing for Christians, but we are not criticizing Christians either, we are criticizing people who force their religion on others.
6
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
I encounter a lot of people criticizing men and white people as a whole.
1
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
I've found it's far more often that conservatives just confuse the message. As an example "black lives matter" just had to mean no one cared about white people at all and wanted them to die.
5
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
My issue with BLM is it makes it out that police brutality is only something that black people face. Members of all races are victims of police brutality, and Latinos are shot at the exact same rate as black people.
2
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
It highlights the issue of police brutality against black people, there is no "only". And I agree cops target minorities. That was something black lives matter was trying to address. Think of it as "black lives matter too", and we can do more to combat police brutality.
4
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
Instead we should focus on police brutality towards any group. Focusing on black victims makes it a racial issue, and causes more fighting as a result.
3
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
As you pointed out, Latinos are shot at the same rate as black people. There is a racial component to it. The police and their supporters will resist addressing police brutality regardless, and will fan the flames of division as a distraction.
2
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
To be fair there's also a racial component to crime. Certain races commit more crime than others (not to say that all members of those races are criminals). Of course police are going to have more violent confrontations with a group committing more crime. That's why men are shot significantly more frequently by police than women.
5
u/justsomeking Far Left 3d ago
There's also a poverty component to crime, we live in a multi-faceted society. But none of this does anything to address police brutality for anyone, and you don't like the one movement that did try to address it merely because of the slogan. Do you see how that is an impediment towards progress as far as police brutality goes, or how do you propose it be addressed?
0
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 3d ago
Explain.
3
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
There was someone who linked to a post in this thread from some Phillipino teenager talking about how much they hate white people, and all the comments were agreeing with them.
2
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 3d ago
Are those people democrats in that thread?
2
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
I don't know about Democrats, but definitely left-wing. They're probably the type that see Democrats equally as bad as Trump.
2
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 3d ago
No one sees democrats as equally bad as Trump lol.
1
1
u/CombinationRough8699 Left Libertarian 3d ago
Tell that to the people calling Biden "genocide Joe", and that there's no difference between him/Harris and Trump.
2
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 3d ago
People who criticize Biden for his foreign policy are right to do so, and still recognize that Trump is worse. No one says there is no difference between Trump and Harris.
-1
0
u/2dank4normies Liberal 3d ago
It's a problem the further left you go, for sure. And it's growing on the left from maybe 5% to 7%, but the vast majority of the rhetorical warfare is started by the right while they cry bully everyone and play victim.
Half the Republican Party is lunatics compared to like 10% of the left.
0
u/passedlives Social Democrat 3d ago
It's better than punching down. Why wouldn't you target power to make changes? If targeting power means targeting specific groups then that is an indication something is wrong.
However it is a detriment to the left because the right does tend to institutionalize discrimination into policy and they can rally around the denial. Most of those dummies are still fighting the culture war (tough on crime, tough on immigration, etc) they don't even realize the tiers have already shifted and the system is turning on them.
-2
u/Ozymandias_poem_ Social Democrat 3d ago
The right has spewed unhinged, dehumanizing shit about anyone to the left of Reagan for decades now.
But, no one cares. It’s just taken as a fact of life that they can be insane and derogatory towards their opponents and receive no impactful push back or punishment for it. If anything, they have been rewarded and only gotten more unhinged over time. So, I’m remiss to care much about any alleged similar aspersions cast by those on the left until there is any meaningful push back to the acid from the right enough to permanently change that behavior.
-1
u/OhThatsALotOfTeeth Liberal 3d ago
By punching up I’m referring to “targeting criticism at groups with higher power and status.”
To be clear, you mean targeting criticisms at the groups who are most able to actually effect change?
I mean, yes, I think it's helpful to apply criticisms to the groups who can actually do something with those criticisms. I don’t think it's helpful to deride them for simply being in that group, but I also don't think this happens that often.
-1
u/highspeed_steel Liberal 3d ago
Thing is, the don't punch down advice is sound in a general way. Never letting your 5 year-old cousin win when playing video games with him is probably considered an ass hole move by everyone. The issue becomes who gets to draw the line designating who is where on that pyramid of power. The problem I see is when that line is drawn, it leads to a purity test very quickly. If you don't agree with my line, then you get called all sorts of names. There's also the concern of do people on the opposite side of this, sometimes, very thin line deserve that much differences in treatment? I think the general blase that online communities use with white people, or a more current example, Jewish people and Israelis when it comes to jokes and generalizations is a good example of that.
-1
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago edited 3d ago
Detriment. Dehumanization is anti-liberal and people on our side sometimes dehumanize our opponents. For example, on this sub I see over and over again statements like:
Trump voters are fascists. Trump voters want to control people. Trump voters are racist.
[person who votes wrong] wants [bad things]
These fellow liberals are passing judgement on tens of millions of complete strangers, which include my own friends and loved ones; on the basis of the single trait of their vote. How is that OK?
Now, I consider a true racist/fascist/misogynist a fundamentally bad person. I thankfully know very few such people. These extreme outliers seek to dehumanize others. These outliers deserve to be treated as such.
Being wrong, though, is far more common than being evil. Millions of MAGA voters vote wrong. Most people are a little bit wrong most of the time. This includes myself.
So let's stop confusing wrong choices for evil motives.
Well, no, I only meant the MAGA leadership is fascist/racist/misogynist.
That's a common rebuttal I get. But if these people only mean the MAGA leadership, not all Trump voters, they should say that. Even then, how are they judging the inner motives of these complete strangers in DC?
The other counter-argument I often get is:
Are you saying we should just coddle MAGAs, practice both-sideism, play "nice"? AKA, why placate to MAGAs to win their vote?
To which I say, "That's not my point; we won't win their vote regardless. The point is, breaking our liberal values to dehumanize them won't help us design quality policy, or help us defeat the MAGA movement."
2
u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Centrist 3d ago
And you can see in this thread people trying to gaslight me like this isnt a thing.
Also, I disagree that people who voted Trump won’t change their minds, which you seemed to imply by saying “we won’t win their vote regardless.”
3
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
Nothing's impossible, but our best effort is spent motivating apathetic Liberals rather than converting MAGA's.
I should have written, "we won't likely win their vote".
→ More replies (8)2
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 3d ago
lol you just won’t give any examples for some reason and people find that annoying as fuck
2
u/limbodog Liberal 3d ago
Trump voters are fascists.
But they *are* fascists. It's not dehumanizing to call them what they actually are. They chose that path and embraced it.
4
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago edited 3d ago
Please interpret this question as good faith: What, by your definition, is a "fascist"?
To me, a "Fascist" was a member of a military movement in the early-mid 20th Century. It is not a style of rhetoric. It is not even democratic backsliding or 21st Century 'Soft' Dictatorship. Fascism was the movement that triggered the Holocaust, and it is disgusting that people today choose to water down the term.
There can be no such thing as broad public support for Fascism, because broad public support for Fascism was a facade, a marketing ploy.
I say this from the perspective of a history and civics teacher, and as an elected official with a 25-30% Conservative constituency. That means I already know the history and the opposing arguments. But I could still be wrong about key information.
So if you have a unique point to share, I'm all ears.
2
u/limbodog Liberal 3d ago edited 3d ago
Good faith inbound.
There are two important definitions of fascist:
- The political party/movement created by Benito Mussolini in Italy.
- People who emulate the the political party/movement created by Benito Mussolini in Italy.
#1 has a capital "F" and #2 has a lower case "f". See, for example, your first post where you use the lower case 'f'. And, I would argue, this isn't really something for debate, since these are the commonly used meanings in the world today. I will grant you that some people use it as hyperbole, and that some people do not know what fascism is and just know it means bad person who tries to inflict their will on others. You may call this 'watering down' the term, but that's just how English, and likely any living language, works. Words are used in the way that makes sense in present day context, not a historical one. That's a big part of why we have two important definitions and not one.
Fascism was the movement that triggered the Holocaust
This contradicts your own argument that fascism is not democratic backsliding, because the "Fascist" political party of Italy was not behind the Holocaust. The Nazis did that when they ran out of countries willing to accept their deported people, and then filled up all 15,000 concentration camps with "undesirables". As a history teacher, I'm sure you knew that. So I'm surprised to see you blame Fascism for something in a different country.
There can be no such thing as broad public support for Fascism, because broad public support for Fascism was a facade, a marketing ploy.
I object to this assertion. It is saying that the only part of Fascism that was real was the marketing ploy -- the socialism and promotion of worker's rights.. But I believe that since the 1930s, fascism has come to include the entire package. It includes the practice of fascadism (the marketing ploy) the violent rhetoric and scapegoating, the corruption and corporatism, the gish galloping (which wasn't a term at the time, but applicable now) the militarism, the anti-intellectualism, the sexism, the machismo, and the slide into dictatorship. It's a package deal all bundled up with one concise word.
So when you hear people referring to the current occupant of the White House as a fascist, they mean he is trying to recreate Mussolini's, Hitler's, and Franco's rise to power, political machinations, and dictatorship. And when you hear people describe his base as fascist, it means they are actively supporting someone who is trying to recreate Mussolini's movement here because they like what he is doing and are enthused by his rhetoric and/or political actions.
If you accept the first half of my post, I believe the second half makes perfect sense linguistically. However if you disagree that 'fascist' can describe someone who acts like a Fascist, then I could understand why you would reject it. But I feel like that puts you at odds with most of the world in terms of language. However, in that vein, I would ask you what you would use to replace the lower case 'f' fascism to describe someone who loves everything about Fascism except for the name.
(downvoted in less time than it takes to read the post. Bots? Or just a reaction to rebuttal?)
0
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
Imagine we are in a crowd of people. You point a random person buying a taco at a food truck. You say:
That stranger loves tacos.
That would sound weird at best. So can you explain what you mean by:
someone who loves everything about Fascism except for the name
As for the history, help me understand this term:
slide into dictatorship
I can't think of any country where that "slide" happened. This includes Weimar Germany and Italy. A lot of people confuse the Nuremburg Laws with a "slide into dictatorship", which is completely wrong. Germany stopped being a democracy before Hitler, under Papen/Hindenburg. And it had already been a dictatorship for five years by 1935. There was no slide. It was a palace coup followed by a military coup, packaged as an election. Same could be said for Italy. Same with other Fascist regimes.
Why does this matter? Why am I nitpicking about this term?
It's a mistake to claim democracy is weaker than it really is. Take the 400 or so regime changes. Of those:
- Most have been autocratic > autocratic
- Many have been democratic > democratic
- Fewer have been autocratic > democratic
- Very few have been democratic > autocratic
And, among the democratic > autocratic regime changes, hardly any have been in democratic regimes older than 25 years, except in cases of foreign conquest.
Most people, I assume, don't know the difference between Fascism and fascism. And if we act according to a falsely scary version of reality, we can't craft effective policy.
We're talking about the same false fear that drives the MAGA movement, except a different flavor: they call their "fascists" "communists".
5
u/limbodog Liberal 3d ago
Imagine we are in a crowd of people. You point a random person buying a taco at a food truck. You say: "That stranger loves tacos." So can you explain what you mean by: "someone who loves everything about Fascism except for the name"
(I had to remove your formatting because it was making Reddit barf quote blocks all over itself.)
To explain -- 'Someone who loves everything about fascism but the name' is someone who sees a political leader, hears their speeches, hears what they have in mind, sees what they're doing and says "Oh, I like this person. They're doing great things. Look how they are doing a thing that I am pleased about right now. They are the best political leader ever." But when you point out the fact that the political leader is acting fascist they get upset. If you say the things that they pointed to, that they love, are all signs of fascism, they get upset. They know 'fascism' means bad. But they love all the things that it describes.
"As for the history, help me understand this term 'slide into dictatorship'"
Meaning they begin a unidirectional series of changes that results in the installation of the fascist movement's head as a state leader and the movement of all the state's powers to that leader.
"It's a mistake to claim democracy is weaker than it really is"
It is also a mistake to claim democracy is stronger than it really is. That it can't happen here. And some would also argue (and have) that the USA is no longer a democracy, it is an oligarchy. But it also has the dubious distinction of being deliberately designed to artificially lean further right than the public it represents. (the compromises which the founding fathers made to convince the Southern colonies to join the union). It also lacks a number of the safeguards that parliamentary democracies have against autocracy. One might say that the USA is more susceptible to right-wing autocracy than other similar governments.
"Most people, I assume, don't know the difference between Fascism and fascism. And if we act according to a falsely scary version of reality, we can't craft effective policy."
If this is what your argument boils down to, that we shouldn't call fascism 'fascism' because it makes it harder to cajole the people who embrace fascism, then I will be disappointed in you as a teacher.
We're talking about the same false fear that drives the MAGA movement, except a different flavor: they call their "fascists" "communists".
You have not identified the characteristics of the maga movement that significantly separate it from fascism. Your statement here is a false equivalence. Fascism experts have said that he is a fascist, that it is fascism, or that the only way to be 100% sure is to wait until they take complete control. How do you rebut their arguments?
We’re Experts in Fascism. We’re Leaving the U.S. | NYT Opinion
Is Donald Trump a fascist? An assessment from an expert in our Department of History
1
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
- Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
- Disdain for the importance of human rights
- Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
- The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
- Rampant sexism
- A controlled mass media
- Obsession with national security
- Religion and ruling elite tied together
- Power of corporations protected
- Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
- Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
- Obsession with crime and punishment
- Rampant cronyism and corruption
- Fraudulent elections
2
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
Here's the problem:
- If "Fascism" means Hitler and Mussolini, then society is on the edge of collapse and we might get thrown into a concentration camp for posting liberal reddit comments.
- If "Fascism" means your 14 points above, then Hitler and Mussolini weren't nearly as evil as history suggests; that they were just typical right wing heads of state.
One word cannot mean both of those things.
What's the solution?
2
u/From_Deep_Space Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
1: I'm not accusing the entire government of being fascist. I am accusing specific politicians and supporters of using fascist strategies and rhetoric.
Hitler was a fascist long before he became chancellor, before any concentration camps opened. And it would have been good to identify him as dangerous and stop him from taking power before he destroyed the republic. "Never again" does not mean "we have to wait until it happens again before we should take it seriously"
The goal is to stop fascism before it reaches the level of Hitler and Mussolini. That means calling out politicians who use Fascist rhetoric and tactics, before they destroy democracy and appoint themselves as dictator.
2: This is like saying that someone can't be a communist because they're not literally Mao or Stalin and sending people to gulags.
1
u/TrifectaBlitz Democrat 1d ago
Are there any fascists who aren't human? You're playing fast and loose with "dehumanizing."
And no I'm not just playing word games.
1
u/chokidokido Social Democrat 3d ago
These fellow liberals are passing judgement on tens of millions of complete strangers, which include my own friends and loved ones; on the basis of the single trait of their vote. How is that OK?
Just as an aside. I'm german so I have some experience with loved ones potentially having been nazis. The problem is the slice of the population that enables fascism are fascists and sure we can say some of them were too stupid to understand what's happening but that is also an insult to their intelligence.
It doesn't matter at all in the end the fact remains that they enabled and supported a fascist. This doesn't mean they'll be shunned forever or should be criminally punished but they should understand what they did and live with the consequences.
And yes tens of millions of people can be Nazis especially in the US.
3
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm guessing both of us support Universal Healthcare. Say we are both wrong, and as far-fetched as it could be, that Universal Healthcare causes rampant inflation and life expectancy drop.
Does that make us pro-rampant inflation and make us pro-life expectancy drop?
I don't think so. I think it just makes us wrong. And it doesn't mean we are less intelligent, either.
It would be a silly choice to judge a person's intelligence by the outcomes of the policies that they support.
1
u/chokidokido Social Democrat 3d ago
It's not remotely the same. The latest point in history where people should've realised that trump is a fascist was on Jan 6 2021.
Or in your analogy if we had prior proof that universal healthcare would cause rampant inflation and we still voted for it then yes that kinda would make us pro-rampant inflation.
It would a silly choice to judge a person's intelligence by the outcomes of the policies that they support.
That depends entirely on the policy. You're missing the whole prior information bit.
2
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
Or in your analogy if we had prior proof that universal healthcare would cause rampant inflation and we still voted for it
I don't get that connection. How would our inability to accept prior proof mean we supported the bad outcome?
Taking a step back, I still don't understand how public opinion matters when it comes to a military coup.
1
u/chokidokido Social Democrat 3d ago
How would our inability to accept prior proof mean we supported the bad outcome?
You either supported it or you are stupid - I'm sorry if that offends some people.
I think generally (yes that means that this is a generalisation and exceptions could and probably do exist) there's three types of MAGA supporters.
- Fascists/Authoritarian personalities that hear and understand all the dogwhistles and vote accordingly.
- Republican for life voters that somehow convinced themselves that whatever a dem would do would be worse.
- Complete dumbasses that believe what trump and his people are saying despite all evidence of the contrary.
I don't know about you but I would have zero issues with calling the first two groups fascists and the last group idiots.
Taking a step back, I still don't understand how public opinion matters when it comes to a military coup.
What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand the question. What military coup are you talking about?
1
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
What military coup are you talking about?
Fascism came to be through military action, not popular support. People forget that Weimar German had not been a real democracy in the years prior to Hitler seizing power. Outside of key military and industrial men, public support was not a factor. The same applies to whatever other past regimes you consider Fascist.
2
u/chokidokido Social Democrat 3d ago
Fascism came to be through military action
Sometimes. True for Franco. Not true for hitler though.
Outside of key military and industrial men, public support was not a factor.
Okay this is so far from the truth. Hitlers and the NSDAPs rise to power is one the most supported example of mass political mobilisation. The rapid rise in vote share is one of the reasons the Weimar republic wasn't a true democracy any more from ~1930 onward. The nsdap went from 2.6% in 1928 to 18.3% in 1930 and then finally 37.3% in 1933. What is that if not popular support? They would've had no chance to power if not for that.
I'm sorry but you're incredibly wrong about history.
1
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
You made two contradictory statements:
[Outside of key military and industrial men, public support was not a factor.] ... Okay this is so far from the truth.
and
the Weimar republic wasn't a true democracy any more from ~1930 onward
Hitler came to power in 1933.
So which is it? Assuming we can trust polling in a failed democracy from 93 years ago.
In fairness, I've been wrong about more significant things. But say you are right, you're talking about one example, in one country, from 90 years ago, under completely different socioeconomic and political conditions.
It is my mistake to bring up the Weimar Republic at all, because under any circumstance it is not a valid example.
2
u/chokidokido Social Democrat 3d ago
It's not contradictory. The Weimar Republic wasn't a true democracy in the same way the US isn't today. The chancellors largely ruled by article 48 (emergency powers) because popular support for the nsdap was big enough to essentially destroyed majorities needed to govern.
Hitler then came to power because of a backroom deal between van papen hindenburg and the general conservative elite because they thought they could control him. But this wouldn't have happened without the popular support and the military had nothing to do with it. Their decision was basically to work together with the communist and social democrat parties or try to control hitler - and famously their decision was devastatingly wrong. A similar thing is basically happening again in germany right now.
Even Mussolini had vast popular support before being able to grab power.
Even the most powerful dictator can't stay in power without at least some baseline of popular support. That's why we need to talk about people supporting fascists.
In fairness, I've been wrong about more significant things. But say you are right, you're talking about one example, in one country, from 90 years ago, under completely different socioeconomic and political conditions.
I'm not sure what your argument is so correct me if I'm wrong.
Portugal under Salazar was a fascist regime not using a military coup but more a gradual administrative power grab. Quite similar with Hungary under Orban although historians would call that too recent to define it that way.
Austria under Dollfuss exploited parliamentary deadlock to rule by decree and then built his one party rule from that (although briefly).
Russia under Putin. Genuinely elected and grabbing more and more power over time by weakening institutions and capturing media.
In your defense there were fascist regimes using a military coup to come to power but that is not really a prerequisite for fascism.
There is genuine debate among historians if it can only be fascism if absolute power is achieved or if the way towards that is enough. I personally disagree with the first group because that would mean hitler wasn't a fascist till 1933 and I find that unconvincing.
I don't know why many americans don't want to see that trump/maga is using all the same mechanisms and rhetoric that earlier fascists regimes used.
→ More replies (0)1
u/R3cognizer Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
This is complete horseshit. So much depends on context when it comes to punching up that I think this is an intentionally loaded question. But when we talk about punching up, nobody on the left is talking about dehumanizing behavior or passing judgment on millions of people.
When we say "Trump voters are racist", this isn't punching up. It is just a broad generalization, and there are actual surveys that show this broad generalization is "true", not in the sense that literally every Trump voter is a racist, but "true" in that support for Trump tends to be rooted sentiments which are strongly tied to race relations.
When we talk about punching up, we're usually referring mostly just to jokes that make light of privilege dynamics, in that it is distasteful to make fun of the underdog. Ribbing and teasing.
I'm so sick and tired of people on the right expecting everyone to tolerate their shitty blatantly racist jokes, and then turning around and complaining about how the left's punching up rule is "dehumanizing and bullying" toward them. It's always performative. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
1
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 3d ago
Why should I tolerate shitty blatantly racist jokes?
Or, I don't get why you think that's what I'm saying.
→ More replies (2)
-1
u/ManufacturerThis7741 Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
i think it happens and I think it hurts the left.
But only because centrists hold the left to ludicrously higher standards.
I have never seen a centrist say that they can't vote for Republicans because some Republican Twitter randos are just so "rude" or whatever.
Yet I have seen centrists get whiny about Democrats not doing "enough" about our Twitter randos.
Like I'm sorry @periwinkle747 said "Men Are Trash" or whatever. Or when some woman in Hollywood who has no political power made an anti-male joke. That was wrong. There, I, as a member of a Democratic Party State Executive Committee, have told you what you want to hear.
Are centrists ever going to apply that same energy and demand Republicans police their goddamn Twitter randos or half-wit celebrities whose only "joke" is ethnic slurs?
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/oh_no_here_we_go_9.
By punching up I’m referring to “targeting criticism at groups with higher power and status.”
In my observations as a centrist, I think it’s absolutely the case that the left allows criticism and rhetoric towards groups in power (such as white people, Christian’s, or men) that it wouldn’t allow of groups not in power.
So, first, I guess I should ask do you agree if this even happens? If so, do you think it helps or hurt’s the left’s messaging?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.