Vice News: Extremism Experts Are Starting to Worry About the Left

While I do agree that there have been situations where things have escalated too much on universities, I am so tired of the right to protest being demonized at universities. It's amazing to me that people keep doing this while pumping up the first amendment for freedom of speech when the first amendment also gives us the right to protest. That's what's fucking insane.

I agree, I'm absolutely for the right to protest. I was getting at the violence and blatant censorship being levied against people who would normally be considered allies of the left because they dare break from the extreme factions that seem to have infected academia.
 
in terms of foreign policy it is pretty objectively worse

and oh wow 70 years ago that's definitely still how the world works

The current refugee crisis is in large part being caused by Assad's and Putin's forces constantly bombing Syrians.

Most far-right and Neo-fascist parties across the world have been getting boosted by Vladimir Putin, including Donald Trump.

Russia has been actively funding fake news operations that feeds into the extremism you are seeing on social media.

And BTW, Russia is currently arming the Taliban.

Like, the isn't about whether or not the US Military is perfect. This is about the fact that without the US military you wouldn't have NATO, and without NATO the Western World wouldn't have been as stable as it has been.
 
I agree, I'm absolutely for the right to protest. I was getting at the violence and blatant censorship being levied against people who would normally be considered allies of the left because they dare break from the extreme factions that seem to have infected academia.

Like who?
 
You're not gonna convince me that advocating for civil liberties and clean air is ever an act of aggression.

When did I ever say that?

There's a gulf of difference between advocating and violence.

Nor am I saying that violence isn't an option. But we haven't​ come close to exhausting the rest. But because becoming organized is just too hard apparently, people are eager for a fight.
 
Or maybe it means, "Hi, let's prove we are better by being better people."

On its face there's nothing wrong with that, but the American left keep falling for the right's tactics and keep reaching across the isle because they (the left) refuse to consider (or publicly admit) the possibility that the Republicans are worse across the board.

When the Republicans are in favor of screwing over racial minorities, women, and LGBT people, in addition to having a greater modern history of violence than the left, the only thing the Democrats have to do to prove that they're better is to keep their current policies.
 
When did I ever say that?

There's a gulf of difference between advocating and violence.

Nor am I saying that violence isn't an option. But we haven't​ come close to exhausting the rest. But because becoming organized is just too hard apparently, people are eager for a fight.

Most antifa groups that keep getting scolded for violence are organized, and fairly well at that. What are you even talking about?
 
I agree that it's not a serious concern now. That doesn't mean it could never be in the future..

But my point is the same one I made to the other posted who both he both "easily" sees a purge of the far-right and that it's "not out of the realm of possibility." That's an incongruity. In the same way, you're claiming it's not a concern and I assume (or maybe I'm asking) that/if you agree it's not more serious than being "not out of the realm of possibility." If you do, then why are the prospects of something so improbable so disturbing and how do they deserve to be in the same conversation as the same scenario on the opposite side, given what they've demonstrated for so long around the world?

Otherwise, it would seem you're suggesting the prospects are actually fairly probable, or at least significantly more than just "out of the realm of possibility." And, if you do, what's the evidence for that?
 
The left is held to far higher standards than the right. I guess loosening them a bit or swing a couple more instances feels like extremism. Perhaps it should be shaken up more.
 
I agree, I'm absolutely for the right to protest. I was getting at the violence and blatant censorship being levied against people who would normally be considered allies of the left because they dare break from the extreme factions that seem to have infected academia.

"Extreme academic factions" get an inverse amount of attention and criticism for how much power and influence they actually wield, wouldn't you say?
 
I'm personally not comfortable with your conflation with radical ideology and the abuses of ideology. Radical leftists and radical leftism are not necessarily violent. We are just more likely to support some expressions of violence because we disagree with liberal demands of incrementalism and civil discourse. Most socialists believe that not all change must happen through parliamentary procedure, and not all views deserve a platform. This doesn't mean we want to kill people. Sure, some leftists are edgy and are uncritically supportive of past authoritarian socialist projects, but we tend to dislike these folks as much as you do.
Sure, we can distinguish radical methods from radical goals. I broadly agree with virtually all of the goals of the far-left. I strongly disagree with many of the methods used historically, and that could be commonly used again.

Anybody in America who calls themself a leftist should clap Antifa on the back. If you disagree with some of their behaviors, that's fine. I'm an Antifa supporter and I think the window-smashing is stupid. But you must recognizing that the rise of "left-wing extremism" in America is a direct result of the increasing violence of the right. Republican attempts to steal healthcare from over 20 million people is a hell of a lot worse than some Antifas getting into a scuffle with neo-Nazis. Rather than condemning their activism arm-and-arm with fascists, listen to young radicals and utilize their anger toward more productive political ends.
My aim is to caution against craziness in the future, not to put the tiny minority of violent left-wingers in the same category as the larger minority of violent right-wingers.
 
Bullshit, considering that most of the civilian deaths in Syria are at the hands of Syrian and Russian force (or are you one of those people who defends Assad?)

You got a source on that? Preferably one from the last couple-years, and not from any think tank funded by Saudi Arabia.

I'm not a big fan of the Syrian government, or the ideology of Bashar al-Assad, but any analysis of that conflict shows that the opposition formerly backed by the United States is substantially more autocratic and right-wing. Our enabling of jihadist factions in Syria has been incredibly destructive, and just another bloody bead on our friendship bracelet with such gruesome actors as the Contras, the Mujahideen, and so many right-wing dictators who did our dirty work in Asia and Latin America.

Outside the United States, attitudes toward the US military are a lot more nuanced than yours. A cursory glance at the history of our foreign policy can tell you why.

Thanks for the clarification. I kind of figured that out-- the belief that faulty economic systems are tied to everything negative, when in reality it's just that a sizable number of people will always be too stupid to not blame their problems on people different than them physically. Maybe a less homogenous distribution of power would rectify that. Affirmative action? Redistribution? Yeah, good luck. Who knows how to even STOP white guys from fucking over the world at this point.

Well, socialists believe that the problem isn't that white guys are white, but that white guys enjoy a position of privilege globally thanks to the two-headed demon of imperialism and capitalism that continues to dominate the world at the behest of a mostly-white and mostly-male ruling class. A central Marxist attitude is that all matters of social oppression have their roots in material (class-based inequality). Some liberals misunderstand this and believe that Marxists don't care about racism or sexism, but this could hardly be further from the truth. Marxists identify sexism and racism as products of our economic system which in turn help perpetuate this system.

This attitude has been vindicated by recent historical research into the emergence of patriarchy and white supremacy. Shockingly, race did not create racism. Instead, our racial conceptions directly emerged out of a system of economic inequality that subordinated black and brown people under white people. The colonists who declared the Americas to be theirs happened to be white. To preserve their new property and justify the brutal violence necessary to protect it, these white colonists established the system of white supremacy. This hierarchy, which took centuries to evolve into our current racial understanding, is a product of colonialism. In turn, it helped defend colonialism, by poor whites to ally with the planter elite rather than considering black slaves and subjugated Native Americans as potential allies.

White supremacy in America is intrinsically tied to capitalism. Our economy was built on white supremacist values. The subjugation of black people was and is often manifest through economic means -- ensuring poverty through the destruction of black business, discriminatory hiring practices, or withholding government assistance. If black people were as rich and influential as white people, they could not so easily be oppressed. Similarly, the oppression of black people allows for our mostly-white ruling class to abuse black labor for menial work. Because many white workers are raised supporting white supremacist assumptions, racial divisions among the working class can be very easily exploited to inhibit labor organizing or other forms of resistance to capitalism.

Broadly, socialists believe liberals don't go far enough. We don't only believe that liberal attitudes and tactics tend to be insufficient, but identify issues and systems that liberals rarely discuss. While most socialists agree with left-wing liberals 70% of the time, and often vote or campaign for liberal politicians, we don't tolerate many core liberal conceptions when push comes to shove.
 
Murdoch doesn't own Vice. 21st Century Fox bought 5% of the shares at Murdoch's' request, but the majority shareholders, most of the original founders, still maintain full control.
Rupert Murdoch was specifically interested in Vice because it reaches millenials. He bought a 5% stake and his literal son is on the board at Vice. If you really think Vice isn't extremely tainted by this, given that Murdoch is one of their largest investors, he's not exactly hands-off when it comes to content, and his son sits on the board, then... Well, okay. Enjoy that.
 
Rupert Murdoch was specifically interested in Vice because it reaches millenials. He bought a 5% stake and his literal son is on the board at Vice. If you really think Vice isn't extremely tainted by this, given that Murdoch is their largest investor and his son sits on the board, then... Well, okay. Enjoy that.

Murdoch's sons aren't as right-wing as him by most accounts, and again, most of the original founders still hold majority stocks and control over the project. But it's not Murdoch-owned as you originally said, regardless. You're just spreading disinformation, apparently intentionally since you seem to even know the details.
 
Marxists are also fans of Thomas Müntzer and the revolting peasants in the German Peasant's War of 1525/26, that doesn't mean they can be considered "leftists" or "proto-leftists". You are not a leftists just because you revolt against oppression or fight for more freedom.

I don't see why they can't be considered proto-leftists. They came before leftists and were, at the time, historically progressive; they embraced certain ideas that put them, in contrast to the powers of the time, to the left as we now understand it.

That's the purpose of saying proto.
 
Why is it that the left needs to be tolerant and pacifistic when, legally and otherwise, the right is using its power to destroy lives? How many people need to be murdered, persecuted, demonized, and violated before revolt is considered a reasonable reaction?

I'm not saying anything that happened yesterday was correct; I'm not saying marching out on the streets in the hundreds of thousands, the millions, isn't a powerful statement; I'm not saying peaceful discourse shouldn't be the first option. But where do you draw the line? When does 'fighting back' need to be taken literally?

Fear is a powerful tool to suppress the people, but the fight-or-flight response is a natural reaction to being backed into a corner. The average person is going to try to continue on with life as usual, but you cannot expect everyone that is affected by laws, laws designed to oppress and eradicate certain segments of the population, to react the same way.

I believe there needs to be a militant left, just as there is a pacifistic left. You don't have to kill, but you also don't have to just let the game play out to it's destructive end. Protect yourselves because, who else is?
 
But my point is the same one I made to the other posted who both he both "easily" sees a purge of the far-right and that it's "not out of the realm of possibility." That's an incongruity. In the same way, you're claiming it's not a concern and I assume (or maybe I'm asking) that/if you agree it's not more serious than being "not out of the realm of possibility." If you do, then why are the prospects of something so improbable so disturbing and how do they deserve to be in the same conversation as the same scenario on the opposite side, given what they've demonstrated for so long around the world?

Otherwise, it would seem you're suggesting the prospects are actually fairly probable, or at least significantly more than just "out of the realm of possibility." And, if you do, what's the evidence for that?
I honestly don't know what the probability is of the rise of some sort of massive violent leftist movement in the US. No one does. Given how unpredictable the world is, especially recently, I wouldn't want to go with my guess (which would be "near-zero in the short term and pretty small in the longer term"). However, I would want to encourage the left to show greater restraint than the right, because of tactical reasons and because bad behaviour (even if done for noble reasons) can spiral out of control and take on a life of its own. As for the reason I'm disturbed--it's because a lot of posters here don't agree with me on that, despite the historical evidence.

I don't think this is anywhere near the same probability as right-wing extremism taking over. But I also don't think GAF is a hive of alt-right crazies, so it's not something I have to argue about.
 
Well, socialists believe that the problem isn't that white guys are white, but that white guys enjoy a position of privilege globally thanks to the two-headed demon of imperialism and capitalism that continues to dominate the world at the behest of a mostly-white and mostly-male ruling class. A central Marxist attitude is that all matters of social oppression have their roots in material (class-based inequality). Some liberals misunderstand this and believe that Marxists don't care about racism or sexism, but this could hardly be further from the truth. Marxists identify sexism and racism as products of our economic system which in turn help perpetuate this system.

This attitude has been vindicated by recent historical research into the emergence of patriarchy and white supremacy. Shockingly, race did not create racism. Instead, our racial conceptions directly emerged out of a system of economic inequality that subordinated black and brown people under white people. The colonists who declared the Americas to be theirs happened to be white. To preserve their new property and justify the brutal violence necessary to protect it, these white colonists established the system of white supremacy. This hierarchy, which took centuries to evolve into our current racial understanding, is a product of colonialism. In turn, it helped defend colonialism, by poor whites to ally with the planter elite rather than considering black slaves and subjugated Native Americans as potential allies.

White supremacy in America is intrinsically tied to capitalism. Our economy was built on white supremacist values. The subjugation of black people was and is often manifest through economic means -- ensuring poverty through the destruction of black business, discriminatory hiring practices, or withholding government assistance. If black people were as rich and influential as white people, they could not so easily be oppressed. Similarly, the oppression of black people allows for our mostly-white ruling class to abuse black labor for menial work. Because many white workers are raised supporting white supremacist assumptions, racial divisions among the working class can be very easily exploited to inhibit labor organizing or other forms of resistance to capitalism.

Broadly, socialists believe liberals don't go far enough. We don't only believe that liberal attitudes and tactics tend to be insufficient, but identify issues and systems that liberals rarely discuss. While most socialists agree with left-wing liberals 70% of the time, and often vote or campaign for liberal politicians, we don't tolerate many core liberal conceptions when push comes to shove.

I have a hard time accepting that racism, a phenomenon that can be explained by something as simple as a basic biological survival mechanism-- mistrust of the 'Other'-- can be proven to be universally caused by economic disparity.

EDIT: But maybe that's not what you're saying. You could be arguing that in this context, white supremacist-controlled capitalism only aggravates what's already there.
 
When did I ever say that?

There's a gulf of difference between advocating and violence.

Nor am I saying that violence isn't an option. But we haven't​ come close to exhausting the rest. But because becoming organized is just too hard apparently, people are eager for a fight.

You're making up hypothetical situations in the middle of an ongoing conflict in an attempt to start a semantic argument about who swung first. That kind of argument is annoying.

Gays: Hi, we'd like to get married.

America: Fuck off, burn in hell for eternity.

Blacks: Hi, we'd like equal access to education and job opportunity.

America: Fuck off, take these noisy freeways through your neighborhoods.


So let's not pretend we don't know who swung first and who actually escalates the conflict via the continued denial of civil liberties. Violence becomes advocacy at this point.
 
I have a hard time accepting that racism, a phenomenon that can be explained by something as simple as a basic biological survival mechanism-- mistrust of the 'Other'-- can be proven to be universally caused by economic disparity.

EDIT: But maybe that's not what you're saying. You could be arguing that in this context, white supremacist-controlled capitalism only aggravates what's already there.

Racism isn't natural. Saying that hating people of "different races" (themselves socially-constructed categories) is natural is a reactionary sentiment. Until colonialism, there was no racism in the modern sense. African travelers to Europe were not immediately hated by the paler majority. Despite being ethnically identical to the rest of the population, Irish gypsies experienced the same repression as the darker-skinned Romany of continental Europe. For nearly 1000 years, Europeans were slaughtering each other on basis of religion without any concern for physical appearance.

We find no conceptions of white supremacy, in our modern understanding, until racial hierarchies already existed. All signs point to white colonists subjugating Native Americans and African slaves because technological advantages allowed them to do so. Initially, their lack of Christianity justified enslavement. After these peoples became Christian, white supremacy was constructed by the European elite to guard their position above both the black and brown masses and the mixed-race people in between.

So white supremacy, and other racialist constructs in other parts of the world, can clearly be seen as products of economic hierarchies which in turn justify and perpetuate these hierarchies.
 
Most antifa groups that keep getting scolded for violence are organized, and fairly well at that. What are you even talking about?

So we can't get organized except for rioting for the sake of rioting (that's not much organization btw, how about actual targeted acts if you're going that route, like say a police station if that's who you're up against? Or a Capitol building?) in the name of anarchy?

Again, seems goal here is to push for a fight. Forget how the left lost to a joke candidate (but Russians! is a piss poor excuse, which is all the left seems good at providing the past year). Forget "Bernie or bust" or anti-establishment" or "Hilary is bad too" (personally wasn't a fan myself, but still did what was necessary).

How about some strong, inclusive leadership that isn't just set on partisan issues? Not just at a figurehead level, but throughout districts and groups to work towards that goal? To get people motivated to be out there. To encourage others to not even entertain or provide platforms to these groups, and demonstrate that people's inherent, not constitutional, rights are not to be infringed.

How about that sort of organization.

You're making up hypothetical situations in the middle of an ongoing conflict in an attempt to start a semantic argument about who swung first. That kind of argument is annoying.

Gays: Hi, we'd like to get married.

America: Fuck off, burn in hell for eternity.

Blacks: Hi, we'd like equal access to education and job opportunity.

America: Fuck off, take these noisy freeways through your neighborhoods.


So let's not pretend we don't know who swung first and who actually escalates the conflict via the continued denial of civil liberties.

When did marriage rights escalate to violence that then decided the repeal of DADT and made gay marriage federally legal?

That is the point of my hypothetical, that people are wanting to fight violently first rather than actually fight in a way where they actually have to work for it. As well as where does that scope of who swung first allow us to go with how far we take it.
 
So we can't get organized except for rioting for the sake of rioting (that's not much organization btw, how about actual targeted acts if you're going that route, like say a police station if that's who you're up against? Or a Capitol building?) in the name of anarchy?

Again, seems goal here is to push for a fight. Forget how the left lost to a joke candidate (but Russians! is a piss poor excuse, which is all the left seems good at providing the past year). Forget "Bernie or bust" or anti-establishment" or "Hilary is bad too" (personally wasn't a fan myself, but still did what was necessary).

How about some strong, inclusive leadership that isn't just set on partisan issues? Not just at a figurehead level, but throughout districts and groups to work towards that goal? To get people motivated to be out there. To encourage others to not even entertain or provide platforms to these groups, and demonstrate that people's inherent, not constitutional, rights are not to be infringed.

How about that sort of organization.

You probably should have just said that to begin with lol. Because most violent groups aren't just roaming thugs like you seem to imagine they are.
 
I mean this is what happens when you let certian extremist groups go unchecked. Everyone else ends up saying "If everyone else can do it, why not us?"

I'd never do anything extreme but I understand why more people are thinking it's a good option or ok.
 
Violence aside (since leftist violence is...basically non-existent in the US) I do disagree with those who think we can and should deploy the same "dirty tricks" as the right. Like, that shit doesn't divorce from politics easily, it becomes your mode of operation and it isn't just bad because it's in service of the "wrong ideas" currently
 
It's not nonexistant on the left, but the extremism is so minute as to be negligible. The Black Bloc is more interested in property damage and throwing things at riot police.

Left wing violence has a very light history in the US, at least after the Civil War (as we had things like the John Brown raid and other abolitionist actions). The anarchists did manage to assassinate William McKinley, although they weren't nearly as pervasive as in Europe, then there was SDS/the Weathermen/the militant end of the Black Panthers in the 60s and 70s but it pretty well died off after that. The civil disobedience faction took over the far left.
 
Racism isn't natural. Saying that hating people of "different races" (themselves socially-constructed categories) is natural is a reactionary sentiment. Until colonialism, there was no racism in the modern sense. African travelers to Europe were not immediately hated by the paler majority. Despite being ethnically identical to the rest of the population, Irish gypsies experienced the same repression as the darker-skinned Romany of continental Europe. For nearly 1000 years, Europeans were slaughtering each other on basis of religion without any concern for physical appearance.

We find no conceptions of white supremacy, in our modern understanding, until racial hierarchies already existed. All signs point to white colonists subjugating Native Americans and African slaves because technological advantages allowed them to do so. Initially, their lack of Christianity justified enslavement. After these peoples became Christian, white supremacy was constructed by the European elite to guard their position above both the black and brown masses and the mixed-race people in between.

So white supremacy, and other racialist constructs in other parts of the world, can clearly be seen as products of economic hierarchies which in turn justify and perpetuate these hierarchies.

Hierarchies are certainly a construct, but the cross-race effect has been established in infants as young as 9 months, and arguably as young as 6. No, there is no natural system of hierarchical domination inherent in this fact, but it's nevertheless true that the broad morphological categories that comprise race are a part of in-group and out-group identification strategies, meaning racism can be "natural" in the sense that it exploits an extant mechanism of differentiation latent in the human mind.
 
Violence aside (since leftist violence is...basically non-existent in the US) I do disagree with those who think we can and should deploy the same "dirty tricks" as the right. Like, that shit doesn't divorce from politics easily, it becomes your mode of operation and it isn't just bad because it's in service of the "wrong ideas" currently

What if I told you a lot of "dirty tricks" (done by LBJ) is a big reason that most of LBJ's Civil Rights agenda passed?
 
You probably should have just said that to begin with lol. Because most violent groups aren't just roaming thugs like you seem to imagine they are.

I never said or indicated anything about "thugs", so I don't appreciate that loaded term being attached to me.

And again, most of my thoughts towards those considered being under the ANTIFA umbrella come from years of people actively trying to set "us" from "them" as their actions were deemed opportunistic rather than directed. And by people I don't mean right wingers that are now suddenly being blamed for that image.

Edit: Also like to add that I don't think the left has anything on the right on violent actions or policies. I was just a bit disturbed by the shift on ANTIFA .
 
What if I told you a lot of "dirty tricks" (done by LBJ) is a big reason that most of LBJ's Civil Rights agenda passed?
I'm talking less about the mechanisms of political governance and more about things like propaganda and populism and their inevitable anti intellectualism (i.e "we need a left equivilent of right wing radio. That works so well for them!")
 
I'm talking less about the mechanisms of political governance and more about things like propaganda and populism and their inevitable anti intellectualism (i.e "we need a left equivilent of right wing radio. That works so well for them!")

I can agree there, though I'm not sure if there's a left equivalent for that for it to be an issue.

It is sad that, at least in the areas I've lived, there's a distinct lack of what one would say be considered progressive talk shows. Meanwhile, all your country and rock stations tend to lean on if not preach right wing/alt-right propaganda, and the Christian stations in addition make for a lot of bad noise that is "informing" the country.
 
I'm talking less about the mechanisms of political governance and more about things like propaganda and populism and their inevitable anti intellectualism (i.e "we need a left equivilent of right wing radio. That works so well for them!")

I'm actually wondering, though, if a form of propaganda aimed at non-intellectuals would be effective if used for good
 
I'm talking less about the mechanisms of political governance and more about things like propaganda and populism and their inevitable anti intellectualism (i.e "we need a left equivilent of right wing radio. That works so well for them!")

Well I'm not just talking about mechanisms though. LBJ's dirty tactics included things like using the JFK assassination as leverage to get Civil Rights legislation passed and outright bullying Senators and Congressmen.

Are we going to have a left wing fake news outlet? No, because the left doesn't really fall for fake news like the right does. But there are other dirty tricks from the right that, for good and bad, some people on the left can and will start using, such as:

- Political Incorrectness
- Intimidation
- Espionage (not shit like Russia collusion though. But there will be hackers and there will be republicans finding out the hard way their conversations were recorded)
- Voter Depression (not to be confused with outright voter suppression, but rather the tactic of psychologically discouraging the opposition from voting)
- etc.
 
Why do we automatically ignore any extremism from the left?Look at how bad the right have become...do we want the left to become just as bad? Nip it in the bud.
Because the far right is statistically a bigger problem than the far left and the latter barely ever gets brought to the public forefront.
 
When did marriage rights escalate to violence that then decided the repeal of DADT and made gay marriage federally legal?

That is the point of my hypothetical, that people are wanting to fight violently first rather than actually fight in a way where they actually have to work for it. As well as where does that scope of who swung first allow us to go with how far we take it.

The Stonewall riots lead to a surge in gay rights advocacy and, later and more broadly, LGBT rights advocacy all over the country.
 
We really need to stop with this bullshit left right nonsense. That hasn't made sense since the french revolution.

The battle is between totalitarianism and liberalism. The extreme left and right aren't dangerous because of the specifics of their ideas as much as that they are totalitarian and utopian ideologies. If you believe you can build a utopia, then you can easily anyone who opposes you is not just wrong, but de facto evil. If people are evil, then violence can be morally justified.

That is a very dangerous road to walk down.

The USA are a country where Bernie Sanders, a run of the mill Social Democrat who still is too full of American exceptionalism, is considered "far left" and a "socialist".
The biggest issue with Sanders is not how as much how far left he is(though his economic ideas are batshit insane IMO), inasmuch as how much he supported totalitarian assholes like Castro and Ortega.
 
The current refugee crisis is in large part being caused by Assad's and Putin's forces constantly bombing Syrians.

Most far-right and Neo-fascist parties across the world have been getting boosted by Vladimir Putin, including Donald Trump.

Russia has been actively funding fake news operations that feeds into the extremism you are seeing on social media.

And BTW, Russia is currently arming the Taliban.

Like, the isn't about whether or not the US Military is perfect. This is about the fact that without the US military you wouldn't have NATO, and without NATO the Western World wouldn't have been as stable as it has been.

Now let's hear your criticism of the United States foreign policy.
 
When Democrats cheer about the death of an innocent murder victim at their convention I'll start giving these "both sides" articles my attention.
 
Well I'm not just talking about mechanisms though. LBJ's dirty tactics included things like using the JFK assassination as leverage to get Civil Rights legislation passed and outright bullying Senators and Congressmen.

Are we going to have a left wing fake news outlet? No, because the left doesn't really fall for fake news like the right does. But there are other dirty tricks from the right that, for good and bad, some people on the left can and will start using, such as:

- Political Incorrectness
- Intimidation
- Espionage (not shit like Russia collusion though. But there will be hackers and there will be republicans finding out the hard way their conversations were recorded)
- Voter Depression (not to be confused with outright voter suppression, but rather the tactic of psychologically discouraging the opposition from voting)
- etc.

I'm going to call bullshit on that.

I think the reason why there isn't a left-wing version of conservative radio, though, goes back to the fundamental difference and why the progressive wing is always going to be more fractured; one side is the status quo (or a regression to a certain status quo), the other side comprises everyone from "the cops need body cams" to "abolish the police". It's simply not a large uniform group to target.
 
Now let's hear your criticism of the United States foreign policy.

Oh you want my criticisms of US foreign policy? Certainly I'll just list some off the top of my head:

- First off the US fucked up with Afghanistan by not helping Afghanistan rebuild after the Soviet-Afghan war (which of course led to the power vacuum that cause further issues in the world)
- Second you have Bush leading a war into Iraq all based on a his admin lying about CIA intel and wasting time looking for WMDs and Al Qaeda connections that did not exist
- Third, the whole "take out the leader, then leave" approach with Libya was an absolute failure, as was the "Well it's only serious if Chemical Weapons get used. Oh wait not really, we don't actually want to seriously get involved" approach with Syria.
- Then you have LBJ and McNamara's whole fuck-up with Vietnam that started with McNamara LYING about what had happened at the Gulf of Tonkin and then LBJ using the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to get around the fact that he clearly didn't have the actual votes to approve a war in Vietnam all for a war that helped no one.
- Then you have all the numerous times that the US has fucked with South and Central America for no reason other than profit, particularly during the early 20th century.

Like I said, I have no problem calling out the times the US has fucked up. But even with those fuck ups, I'd rather have the US be the world's global superpower than a dictatorship like Russia or China.
 
Like I said, I have no problem calling out the times the US has fucked up. But even with those fuck ups, I'd rather have the US be the world's global superpower than a dictatorship like Russia or China.

This is the painful and unfortunate truth. I have a lot of issues with the US but fuck me if they're not the lesser of three evils.
 
The US didn't have to worry about crazy neo-Nazis going relatively mainstream, either. Until, suddenly, it did.

Like I said earlier in this thread, left-wing extremism in the US doesn't seem like a serious issue to me right now. But it should be monitored and nipped in the bud before it becomes one. Fear-mongering about the left can empower the right, sure. But the Vice News article doesn't seem like fear-mongering. Going beyond that and sweeping any excesses of left-wingers under the rug seems like a morally repugnant tactic that has shown to backfire again and again.

The timing sure smacks of fear-mongering.
 
Top Bottom