this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Rant

579 readers
12 users here now

A place where you can rant to your heart's content.

Rules :
  1. Follow all of Lemmy code of conduct.
  2. Be respectful to others, even if they're the subject of your rant. Realize that you can be angry at someone without denigrating them.
  3. Keep it on Topic. Memes about ranting are allowed for now, but will be banned if they start to become more prevalent than actual rants.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Online left-wing infighting seems to me to be about applying labels to people because they argue or have argued one thing on a particular topic, and then use it to discredit an unrelated argument topic or paint their overall character. I know there are pot-stirring trolls and compulsive contrarians, but I do witness users I personally judge to have genuine convictions do this amongst each other.

Within US politics, CA Gov. Newsom is an illustrative example (plenty of examples exist too for other countries and around Lemmy/Fedi). I don't particularly like him, he has done things I think are good, some things I think are funny, something things I think are bad and some things I think are downright horrible. Yet I have encountered some users online who will say they can't ever applaud a move of his if one specific other policy or set of other unrelated policies crossed a line for them. I'm not asking people to change their mind on what they think of a person because of an isolated good thing they do, but to at least acknowledge it as a good thing or add nuance describing what about it you like or don't. I can accept saying "I don't think this is a good thing in this circumstance", "this person will not follow through with this thing I think is good thing because ___", or "they are doing a good thing for wrong and selfish reasons" too. But to outright deny any support for an action because of a wildly extrapolated character judgement of the person doing it, when that user would support it otherwise, vexes me greatly.

I know this is not every or most interactions on Lemmy, but these are just some thoughts I have to get out of my head. You don't have to agree with me. I'm using 'left-wing' because the definition of 'leftist' or 'liberal' is wide-ranging depending on who you talk to. And on the side of the spectrum I'm calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other. That's all, thanks for reading.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago

Ed Koch said it best.

"If you agree with me 51% of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me 100% of the time, see a psychiatrist."

[–] mistermodal@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (9 children)

Lesser evilism is a race to the bottom. While it's easy to tut tut about how you're the most reasonable person in the conversation, it's plain to people with either memory or the werewithal to study ancient history that you and Gruesome Newsome are defending positions that were considered extreme far right 20 years ago. This is called the ratchet effect. The dems bravely hold the line against the mean, critical, STERN left, who are committing the worst crime of all (demanding results), laud themselves for being less Hitlerian (sometimes), and then the next brownshirt aficionado turns the heat up further

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Amazing how people are more willing to embrace/forgive, even revise history of fascism than communism who saved the world from fascism repeatedly.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for displaying perfectly the point I made with my other comment ITT. Based on barely more than zero, you declared me your political enemy.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

While lemmy itself isn't a target for propaganda bots, the narratives they push kinda seep in.

Propaganda doesn't seek to convert a leftist to the right, their strategy is to fragment the left - factions spend their energy arguing amongst themselves instead of presenting a cohesive opposition.

For example, elements of the left were protesting about Palestine outside Kamala's campaign events.

[–] mistermodal@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

The voting system is uttely cancerous and feeds into the westoid preoccupation with creating winners and losers in society. It naturally creates echo chambers.

That being said, your speculation is foolish. Private intelligence contractors openly advertise that they monitor the fediverse. It would be kind of stupid not to

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Don't be so confident there isn't bot and or paid influence activity here. There have been some suspicious trends that pop up even on lemmy.

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (11 children)

It was indeed very bad for the democracts to support Israel so staunchly. This is the problem with the US 'left'. They're not really left, they're neoliberal. Money is all that matters to them.

You really need a real left there.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Absolutely true. And yet, whenever US politicians do buck the trend and become vaguely left and give strong criticism to Israel and try to stop us arming them, this same group of people calls them "Zionists" or throws paint on their campaign offices, and tries to insist that leftists shouldn't support those politicians, either.

Almost as if it was always about creating division in the left and not about Israel in the first place...

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The narrative was vote Biden and move him left. Biden did not move left. He enabled and contributed to genocide. Kamala actively stated she would continue Biden's policies. She also said she would be "tough on the border".

Should anyone in a democracy believe the words and actions of the candidates?

I talk to people about ideas like "keeping the full benefit of their labor power", "cooperating with other human beings", "no war but the class war" and "no gods no masters". I'm awful at parties and fragmenting the left. Infighting is real. Never trust a ML.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago

The narrative was vote Biden and move him left.

Whose narrative was that? The narrative was, Trump is trying to end democracy and put Hispanics (and later Democrats) in concentration camps, so vote for his opponent. Seems like that was kind of borne out by the future events.

Are you still pissed off that people were suggesting voting for Kamala Harris, watching the state of the US and the world right now? Are you proud of advocating for not voting?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago

While lemmy itself isn’t a target for propaganda bots

Why do you assume this? It's impossible to tell most of the time, but every so often one of them fucks up and reveals that something hinky is going on.

The most recent example was someone who was furious about Graham Platner and said we shouldn't support him, fellow leftists, while also claiming to have been in the US military and also to be from Platner's tiny home county, using both of those as sources of authority to speak on it, and I can say that at least the military side of that was definitely a lie because the person didn't know how the US military works.

What is the explanation for that, other than that the person is deliberately doing propaganda against progressive candidates?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Denjin@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

This is the problem with leftist mobilisation on the whole and basically always has been. The right is mostly made up of single issues. Things like opposing LGBT+ rights, reproductive rights, racial integration, social welfare etc. Any one of things are your main bag and Conservative it is. All the others basically aren't deal breakers. For example, you could be closeted homosexual but also an ardent racist, you're definitely not going to vote left.

On the flip side, all the left has are deal-breakers. Leftists will constantly come up against purity tests for a myriad of different factions, interest groups, loud parts of the Internet etc etc.

As an example, you may be the scion of the left in terms of your electoral ability but if you say women's sport should be protected from those born with a potential innate advantage of a higher amount of testosterone, you're pissing off a part of your base who now would rather anyone but you got into power.

Look at how the different sides (socialists, communists, anarchists, Basque and Catalan nationalists etc), descended into infighting during the Spanish Civil War even while on the brink of victory against Franco's Nationalists. (who for example brought together the anti-Catholic and anti-monarchist Falangists and the pro-Catholic and pro-monarchist CEDA because they could all agree on wanting to destroy the Reds).

edit: added word for clarity

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

As an example, you may be the scion of the left in terms of your electoral ability but if you say women’s sport should be protected from those born with a potential innate advantage of a higher amount of testosterone, you’re pissing off a part of your base who now would rather anyone but you got into power.

Absolutely. Because we still have principles. And copying right-wing talking points is not one. The whole toilet and sports discussion are complete BS to get themselves angry about stuff that doesn't actually happen in real life.

Maybe this puts us at a disadvantage but giving up our principles for a common goal is not really how this works. We'd be giving up too much of ourselves. We don't live by anger and hate that unites us. And I don't believe in being told what to do/think. I guess for a lot of conservatives this is less alien a concept because they have been brought up in churches which do exactly that.

Personally I also don't have any loyalty to a political movement. I temporarily align myself while our goals are the most similar but I feel free to flip whenever I feel (or when they do something I don't agree with). I used to be a member of the socialist party in Holland but they did a few things I didn't agree with (like firing their entire youth movement for being too left) so now I joined the animal party. Which is also progressive.

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe this puts us at a disadvantage but giving up our principles for a common goal is not really how this works.

I struggle to square the statement in the scope of "democracy". It reads like you don't want to compromise to reach a solution at all. That's not democracy. There will always be people who hold positions different to yours and one side is going to have to bend their principals to reach a compromise.

I'm not asking you to accept any particular position here, but if we take a step back from the actual policies of our current time it sounds less like you want a democracy, a system where different views are blended together, and more like a system that only meets "your" views.

Again not an attack on "you" but if everyone has this staunch viewpoint, how can we ever get to a workable system for all?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I hear ya. In fact your rant overlaps quite a bit with my own rants against witch hunters (people who screech, bash, or try to denounce someone else, online and in the open, with little to no grounds to do so).

I know this is not every or most interactions on Lemmy, but...

...but it's like biting into something rotten: the foul taste lingers for a while, no matter how much good food you have afterwards.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You know the concept of Critical Support? In the case of Newsom, who if he didn’t lose a general, would demonstrate to another generation of voters that the dem party is not a potential vehicle for positive social change, its the opposite, critical opposition.

I'm sure there were social democrats in 1933 complaining that communists weren't getting in line behind the left-most faction of the NSDAP.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I’m sure there were social democrats in 1933 complaining that communists weren’t getting in line behind the left-most faction of the NSDAP.

Replace NSDAP with the centrist coalition to defeat NSDAP and this is unironically 100% correct. The communists were furious at the very suggestion, and were still fistfighting in the streets with SPD supporters while then plans were being drawn up for both of them to go into the camps. How is this your example lol?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iii@mander.xyz 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

I genuinely think those loud, puritan, anti-social leftist zealots are the major reason people vote opposite.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago

I kind of feel you here, though I think this reply put it most aptly.

To paraphrase it bluntly: if you believe progressive stuff in most areas but regressive in one, the regressive movement welcomes you with open arms as long as it is convenient, while the loudest progressives will shun you out of their movement.

My rant is a bit of a call for more nuance.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mat@jlai.lu 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There are some discussions about this topic in France too, and let me explain my POV to you: I am leaning toward anarcho-communism, but it's not represented by any big political party. The compromise I can make is LFI, as they are able to criticize capitalism. Other left party are like "I don't know what else" for the greens, our communist party does not use class warfare since a long time, and the socialist party has always betrayed any idea of left politic. Any alliance between LFI and such parties would mean compromission at some point. I'd rather have them over promise on the left to apply social policies, that compromise with the socialists and having nothing done.

In the end, it usually boils down to political orientation that are fundamentally inconsistent, eg social-liberalism and social democratism. And if you ask me, being pro-capital is right leaning, as trying to be socialist with capitalism in place is doomed to fail in the end

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] archonet@lemy.lol 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (17 children)

As much as I despise the idea of getting a Newsom presidency when he's about as "mediocre centrist" as politicians in the US come; it would still be leaps and bounds better than four more years of Trump, Vance, or whatever corrupt fuck crawls out from under the MAGA movement in 2028. I'm hoping primaries mean we get an actual candidate, so we could, I dunno, win on a progressive platform for a change -- but being realistic, if we're driving off a cliff and turning around is not an option, pumping the brakes is still better than stamping down on the gas.

This all, of course, assumes we still have free and fair elections come 2028, which is looking like an increasingly fanciful idea.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There are lines that need to be drawn. If a neo-nazi says they want to push neo-nazi policies in the name of defeating Trump, nope, still not letting them in the tent just because they said they're trying to beat Trump.

And if you can agree with that extreme hypothetical, then it just becomes a debate over where we draw that line, not over whether a line should be drawn at all. I think for a lot of people, "leftist infighting" is something that's only bad when other people do it, because they drew the line in a different place from you.

Getting a little less hypothetical here, I don't think it's acceptable to throw LGBTQ people under the bus in the name of defeating Trump. Even if you want a big tent, you're still stuck with a conflict on whether that tent should include LGBTQ people or Gavin Newsom. I'd rather have the former.

We have almost four years to find a better nominee than Gavin Newsom. I am positive that we can do better than him.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If a neo-nazi says they want to push neo-nazi policies in the name of defeating Trump, nope, still not letting them in the tent just because they said they’re trying to beat Trump.

Boy, it sure is good that we're talking about exactly that, and not some totally different scenario.

We have almost four years to find a better nominee than Gavin Newsom. I am positive that we can do better than him.

Sounds great. I think OP's point (my point certainly) would be that as a random example, these people seem to spend lots and lots more time shitting on Democratic or leftist politicians than they do on trying to find someone better. Gavin Newsom? POS. Graham Platner? War criminal. Bernie? Zionist. AOC? Genocide supporter.

So who do they support? Why don't we hear them trying to rally support for those left-wing people instead (except when it comes around to the general election and they suddenly get super-passionate about voting third party because the Democrats haven't earned my vote, red line, lesser evil, and so on.)

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Did you read the very next sentence? I made the hypothetical intentionally extreme in order to make a point.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sounds great. So you wouldn't vote for Newsom over Nick Fuentes? And you describe that somehow as choosing LBGTQ people over Newsom, even though they would suffer massively when Fuentes wins?

My point is that this whole framework for looking at the elections is extremely bizarre.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You are deliberately going out of your way to miss the point.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So you wouldn’t vote for Newsom over Nick Fuentes?

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Most lefties with this viewpoint will eventually and begrudgingly agree that they'd vote for Newsome but of course spend the rest of their efforts sabre rattling against him while offering no one who meets their requirements.. shrug

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I mean I definitely do not like Newsom. He is sort of textbook of the modern neoliberal bullshit Democrat, and he's just "Gen Z" enough with all this social media crap that I could absolutely see him being the guy who gets trotted out so that the Democrats can avoid letting an actual progressive near power for another 50 years, and then get all confused when they lose the election. Literally my only criticism here is for the idea "... and that's why it's okay to let Republicans win over and over, until the Democrats get better all on their own!"

It is okay to influence your politicians and fight for better in Washington. It is vital, we're fucked without it, maybe even with it. Refusing to vote isn't that. People have been refusing to vote, in really amazingly high numbers, it has accomplished fuck-all.

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. Newsome sucks and we can do better. I wish we had a system of more parties and less of a zero-sum game

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

The anti-homeless and anti-trans policies of gruesome newsom are not easily distinguished from the fascists policies tbf

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And I'm okay with your example, that would be to me best described as "even if it was for reasons you would like (defeating Trump) he did actions you think are bad (neo-Nazi-like, and specifically transphobic)". Like you can say that Newsom shouldn't belong in the Democrat tent because of this or that, but if he proposes housing policy that you think would be helpful, either link a material reason as to why his transphobia, previous deed or other negative quality would taint this proposal. Otherwise say something "I like this policy ...even if I don't like him" or "...even if he's a shitbird neo-lib transphobe" or "...even if he's probably just doing it to run for a future Presidency" or "...though most of the credit should go to the CA Assembly".

In a more extreme hypothetical, if Trump were to somehow get Grok or ChatGPT to slop out a universal US healthcare policy document that has comprehensive detail, I might applaud the plan itself on its merits, but of course I know Trump is a pathological liar, changes his mind all the time, his administration is full of idiots too evil and incompetent to implement it, and Republican, big pharma and insurance donors will never let that get off the ground and so I'd have little trust in that happening. But I would say "Trump, as much as I despise him, had a good idea for once that Democrats could actually try implementing for real", or "he's probably going to say the opposite after a quick chat with Perdue" instead of "I don't like this plan only because it came from Trump". Discourse would be better if we could separate the words/actions from the speaker, at least to start, but say why that speaker or a relevant larger context makes the words/actions unreliable if that's the case.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In a representative democracy, we don't just vote for policies that can be separated from their politicians. We vote for politicians.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago

Yes you are correct that is how elections work, but I argue that when an article or post topic is about a policy, let's focus the discussion on the policy, and caveat with what you don't like about the politician alongside it if you need to. Just because you like someone's policy idea in one area, isn't going to make you vote for them, and IMO, people assuming that association is what dissuades meaningful discussion on things we mutually want. After coming to an agreement we can then find a person that better fits the bill to elect. When it's about voting and elections, let's discuss more on the politician's merits and demerits over there.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The main issue for leftists is that both of your two parties are full of corrupt unabashed neoliberal capitalists who are so far to the right they would make even Margaret Thatcher blush, the main difference being that one party is more openly racist and fascist than the other. That's not a purity test, it's a fundamental difference of values.

Are you really living in a democracy when only one of two parties can ever win, and both are 100% commited to neoliberal economics? Nothing is gonna get better in the long run under a system that is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. No war but class war.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (12 children)

Riddle me this

Where did all these people go who were so supportive of the Green Party and PSL and all that? During the election, there were super important parties to vote for, who represented a chance of real change not these dumbfuck Democrats, and a bunch of people on Lemmy were rallying behind them and saying they planned to vote for them and basically never shutting up about it. What happened to those parties and all that advocacy for them? Why, after the election, did it pivot right back around to focusing purely on the Democrats (or on how important it is not to vote just in general as a general rule)?

Also, there are people existing outside the two-party system, Bernie Sanders is one. Do you support expanding out efforts like that to try to break into the two-party oligarchy fest?

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I'm very left-wing but the thing with 'us' is, that we still have principles. The extreme right is long past any kind of principle or fact. They just live in a fantasy world inventing things to get themselves angry about. Anyone who disagrees in the slightest with today's narrative will be cancelled from their community. But for us the facts still matter. And that meand we sometimes disagree.

I wouldn't call someone like Newsom 'left' though. He's left by US standards but for the rest of the world he would still be pretty right-wing. And strongly capitalist/neoliberal.

Anyway you can rant all you like but I'm not going to 'fall in line'. It's just a concept alien to me. I have my own goals and principles and I don't align with others. I might join forces temporarily but that's about it. I still remain the only one who decides how I feel on each topic. And I will change my political alliances as I go.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

ITT: @PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au spams every comment with left-wing infighting.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I made a couple more, just for you!

(Infighting is when you reply to infighting I guess, lol)

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 months ago

The prophecy unfolds.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

This is my biggest problem with this place. Disagree a little and you're scum. Someone recently told me to kill myself because I said "Nazis are horrible people, but they are in fact human". This literally got me called a Nazi sympathizer. Because anything less than saying they're literal cockroaches means you support awful right wing ideas.

People can't wait to find a way to claim you believe horrible shit that you never said and is unlikely you believe. It's fucking bizarre.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. I'm not asking people to change their opinions, I'm asking for a little more nuance and less jumping to conclusions.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah I know what you mean. The tendency to take one comment and extrapolate an entire worldview is out of hand. Not just on lemmy, but I expect better on lemmy.

I used to try not to block people now but I'm getting a much more block-happy feeling recently.

load more comments
view more: next ›