I think I understand what you are saying, but that is the nature of a society.
We all have our own unique upbringings and experiences that shape us.
Political tribalism helps increase the difficulty of uniting the working class. Divide and conquer is still relevant in our society, especially with identity politics and social issues.
I think it fundamentally goes back to:
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
The problem with this sentiment is that you misrepresent the points of contention. This is not a disagreement over people’s preferred pizza toppings, where parties can safely “agree to disagree.” We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist. Do you really think this hasn’t been discussed? Do you genuinely think this hasn’t been talked about, debated, argued, demonstrated, illustrated, and experienced ad infinitum for literal decades?
The reason you are being downvoted (and justly so) is that your argument in this case is literally a form of victim-blaming. People being actively harmed, abused, and oppressed are under no obligated whatsoever to try and meet their aggressors in the middle or to concede any part of their existence to them. This disease was festering long before the internet existed. “Echo chambers” have nothing to do with it. It a matter of good versus evil, right versus wrong, liberty versus death. Neither the oppressed mor their defenders will lie down and die because you are inconvenienced by conflict they never wanted.
Deporting the most vulnerable members of society to forever prison in El Salvador, then telling the president of that country (on camera) that he needs to build four or five more forever prisons so Trump can start sending the “homegrowns”.
Right, but for some of us, our upbringings and experiences include, “Reading actual works of political theory” while for others it involves, “Watching cable TV.” An ignorant viewpoint is not on an equal level as an informed one.
Of course, uniting the working class is important, but that doesn’t mean falling into “Tailism,” that is, adopting reactionary views to ingratiate ourselves to a reactionary population. The goal is to spread education and knowledge to make the population less reactionary. It is necessary, to a degree, to meet people where they’re at and to accommodate their concerns, but there is a line to be drawn. Engaging in Tailism fractures the left, alienates comrades who will object for legitimate reasons, legitimizes reactionary views, and makes a movement far more susceptible to opportunists, who are only concerned with their own advancement and willing to sell out members of the working class, since, you know, that’s what Tailism is.
If you want to actually build a working class coalition, the most important thing is to practice solidarity. Everyone is part of a minority, in a sense. For instance, whatever job you have, most people aren’t involved in that field. Being a minority in a democracy is inherently precarious, because the majority could take your rights away. Solidarity means an alliance between disparate groups to stand together for mutual defense. But that alliance is broken when you sell out a group for political gain. Not only do you lose that group, but every group in the coalition starts wondering if they’ll be next, and starts worrying about themselves than coming to the defense of others who might be more in the crosshairs. If solidarity breaks down, then how can the working class be united?
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is the nature of a society.
We all have our own unique upbringings and experiences that shape us.
Political tribalism helps increase the difficulty of uniting the working class. Divide and conquer is still relevant in our society, especially with identity politics and social issues.
I think it fundamentally goes back to:
The problem with this sentiment is that you misrepresent the points of contention. This is not a disagreement over people’s preferred pizza toppings, where parties can safely “agree to disagree.” We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist. Do you really think this hasn’t been discussed? Do you genuinely think this hasn’t been talked about, debated, argued, demonstrated, illustrated, and experienced ad infinitum for literal decades?
The reason you are being downvoted (and justly so) is that your argument in this case is literally a form of victim-blaming. People being actively harmed, abused, and oppressed are under no obligated whatsoever to try and meet their aggressors in the middle or to concede any part of their existence to them. This disease was festering long before the internet existed. “Echo chambers” have nothing to do with it. It a matter of good versus evil, right versus wrong, liberty versus death. Neither the oppressed mor their defenders will lie down and die because you are inconvenienced by conflict they never wanted.
Example 2 of why Trump is in power, and how you guys still don’t get it.
Are you suggesting that Trump does not take such positions?
Which positions that Trump takes are a “clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist”?
Deporting the most vulnerable members of society to forever prison in El Salvador, then telling the president of that country (on camera) that he needs to build four or five more forever prisons so Trump can start sending the “homegrowns”.
Illegal immigrant gang members? What?
Have you seen any evidence of illegal immigrant gang members?
…are they in the room with us now?
Yes. The only people who have been sent to El Salvador were illegal immigrants with proven gang affiliation.
That claim is untested in court meaning that they are innocent until proven guilty no matter what their immigration status is.
It’s been tested in court plenty of times. Garcia for example was determined by 2 separate courts/judges to be MS-13.
Right, but for some of us, our upbringings and experiences include, “Reading actual works of political theory” while for others it involves, “Watching cable TV.” An ignorant viewpoint is not on an equal level as an informed one.
Of course, uniting the working class is important, but that doesn’t mean falling into “Tailism,” that is, adopting reactionary views to ingratiate ourselves to a reactionary population. The goal is to spread education and knowledge to make the population less reactionary. It is necessary, to a degree, to meet people where they’re at and to accommodate their concerns, but there is a line to be drawn. Engaging in Tailism fractures the left, alienates comrades who will object for legitimate reasons, legitimizes reactionary views, and makes a movement far more susceptible to opportunists, who are only concerned with their own advancement and willing to sell out members of the working class, since, you know, that’s what Tailism is.
If you want to actually build a working class coalition, the most important thing is to practice solidarity. Everyone is part of a minority, in a sense. For instance, whatever job you have, most people aren’t involved in that field. Being a minority in a democracy is inherently precarious, because the majority could take your rights away. Solidarity means an alliance between disparate groups to stand together for mutual defense. But that alliance is broken when you sell out a group for political gain. Not only do you lose that group, but every group in the coalition starts wondering if they’ll be next, and starts worrying about themselves than coming to the defense of others who might be more in the crosshairs. If solidarity breaks down, then how can the working class be united?