Hacker News Reader

Comment by colordrops | Hacker News Reader

If you get enough organizations onboard and people screaming on social media, you can convince people otherwise, as evidenced by the last two years. You've got large swaths of the supposed left now supporting things they used to fight against, those being racism, war, and censorship, and you are called a fascist or a bigot or a *phobe if you challenge them. (Or just downvoted to oblivion)

It just goes to show that most people don't base their beliefs on first principles and ideals but rather subconscious social cues and pressure. The US right wing has been taking advantage of this for decades with Rupert Murdoch and FOX leading the way, and it was only a matter of time for the left wing to join in.

View on HN

Where is the left calling for racism and war?

To be accurate, the parent talked about 'support' for war - which is true. The elected representatives of the left have doubled-down on wars, expanded them and presided over mass civilian casualties.

Being on the left does not require pacifism. But it does mean opposing fascism and racism, and sometimes fighting against them.

Elected representatives of all sides are constantly diluting and bastardising noble ideas for expedience.

>But it does mean opposing fascism and racism, and sometimes fighting against them.

Indeed, the US should oppose those things inside their own boundaries where they have the right to. There is no reason to assume the US is virtuous and right on any given moral issue. In fact there are lots of reasons pointing towards the opposite case. We (I) don't want the US to invade other countries with its "concern" and cause mass civilian casualties.

Which countr(y|ies) is the USA considering invading at this point?

I don't have a hot-line to any executive branch of government, so I am going off of historical actions presided over by elected representatives of both left/right.

"Indeed, the US should oppose those things inside their own boundaries where they have the right to."

So the US has a right to sell weapons to anyone abroad, but when it comes to the humanitarian consequences suddenly borders matter? If you want to be isolationist then be consistent. Having the benefits of international trade requires equivalent moral responsibility.

"There is no reason to assume the US is virtuous and right on any given moral issue."

There are lots of reasons pointing to the opposite, but that doesn't mean it can't be either. You could just as easily define 'right' as everyone intervening anywhere, regardless of borders, to prevent mass civilian casualties. One obvious case comes to mind.

>You could just as easily define 'right' as everyone intervening anywhere, regardless of borders, to prevent mass civilian casualties. One obvious case comes to mind.

The US hasn't intervened when it comes to mass civilian casualties in Pakistan, Kashmir, North Korea, etc, etc, etc. The US is hypocritical (like many countries) and intervenes when it is convenient.

On a related note - do you support Putin's invasion out of "concern" for the people of Donetsk?

You see all kinds of statements about white people that would be considered absolutely reprehensible if said about other races. The excuse is always that "you can't be racist against whites".

And just look at all the supposed (note the word "supposed" here, as there is a true left still) left wing pundits calling for weapons and even involvement in the Ukraine.

Can you link to some examples of reprehensible statements? (Genuinely curious if I'm overlooking something.)

You can see them pretty much every day if you use twitter enough.

I just looked at google news and there's one right on the front page of my particular feed:

https://news.yahoo.com/nyc-top-health-official-refers-003159...

"Where is the left calling for racism and war?"

Dems are 20% more likely to support US intervention and 'support' for Ukraine - sorry I wish I had the data point, but it's there.

Dems are hugely in favour of overtly, institutionally discriminatory practices for hiring, medical practices etc.. For example NY state's rationing policy for COVID antivirals favours 'people of colour' by quite a lot. Obviously it's ostensibly in 'good faith' an attempt to create better outcomes, but it probably doens't really and it's arguably racist.

I don't generally think the Left is more nationalist and war-like - that's just a peculiarity of the moment, but the Left is 100% more concerned about issue of race and policies that effectively discriminate. Again, for what they deem to be legitimate reasons, but that doesn't make them right.

This is what happens when you view left and right through the lens of the US two-party system. The left does not see Democrats as representative of it position.

But to say the left should always oppose war is incorrect. If the world grew closer to fascism, the left would be calling out more to fight it. That doesn't make it any more warlike than, for example, small countries facing imperialism, or tribes facing colonialism. Distributing power improves the chances for peace, or so the principle goes.

I'm not saying if they Left should or should not support war.

Also by 'Dem' I should have said 'Left'.

I'm not even technically against polices that are overtly discriminatory, except that they would have to be 'very, very exceptional'.

But the Left supports those, which are arguably racist.

It's not my political posture one way or the other, I'm just responding to the point that the Left is 'not for war or racism' - when they can definitely support war, and polices that are unfortunately racist, even for 'bad reasons'.

The Left can be trusted to have a 'Kernel of Good Faith' on issues of Social Justice. When someone form the Left says they are concerned about it - I believe it. But one step beyond that and I'm cynical. In much the same way I am fully fine with 'flag waiving' and 'acts of patriotism'. But it makes me jittery quickly because that stuff can get mean pretty quickly as well.

I guess you can make an argument that it's racial discrimination in the same sense that affirmative action is racist. But it rings hollow when the same people who have been discriminating against black people for years suddenly have a problem with 'racism'.

I don't know you, or whether you fit into that category. But so much of the pearl clutching we see the days from the right is clearly disingenuous. Maybe that's why the left doesn't take it seriously and will vote accordingly.

Yeah, careful what you call left.

Hence the word "supposed". I would consider myself to be part of the left.

Then join me in saying outright that these people are not part of the left.

Fully agreed, I support you. Now how do we convince the other 95% of the populace that falsely believes they are part of the left? It's part of the neo-liberal establishment to co-opt the left for their selfish purposes and won't let go so easily.

I guess by being consistent ourselves and by being clear about what the left is and isn't/does and doesn't support. And not letting liberals steal that valour.

Bernie Sanders is a good, consistent example of a left wing advocate - by clearly opposing the Iraq war and clearly opposing the Russian invasion, people can conclude that he has a principled opposition to imperialism, in all its forms, no matter who is doing it.

Also being ready with points to counter red baiting; the USSR wasn't left wing - Stalin and Lenin killed more peasants and socialists than anyone etc.

The consistent advocacy that comes from thought-out, principled positions isn't emphasised enough. The left needs to make that more of an election issue. Just some thoughts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com