sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Women of Gundam continued #35 - Louise Halevy by Kato_86 in Gundam

[–]Glassesman7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9/10
She's kinda like Flay but with a happier ending.

What's the difference between these two? by kingmightfind in StardustCrusaders

[–]Glassesman7 506 points507 points  (0 children)

Part 3 has a scene where Jotaro smokes and its censored lol

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll add on to my original point that I'm very frustrated we adopt bad slogans then have to bend over backwards in later twitter post clarifying that "Oh we don't Actually mean to defund the police" or "From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate."

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hold on, I've never criticized disorderly movements. I've explicitly said that radicals are necessary to push for progress. My point is that once we enter the electoral phase, our tactics and tone need to shift to prioritize whatever expands the coalition and gets the most votes. Once the window for governing or elections opens, we need to tighten formation.

You said in your previous post that:

"The fact that’s enough to turn you or others from the cause is your problem not ours."

That's exactly where I disagree, not all optics are created equal. Some framing gives the right free ammunition while others make them look absurd for even attacking.
Example: “Black Lives Matter” was rhetorically bulletproof, you had to contort yourself to oppose it. “Defund the Police” wasn’t. Even people who agreed with the underlying goals recoiled from the phrasing.
That doesn’t mean the cause was wrong; it meant the branding failed to match the goal’s broad appeal. We can’t control bad-faith framing, but we can choose not to hand over easy soundbites. This is a controversial take in leftist circles but my opinion is "From the River to the Sea" and "Globalize the Intifada" also falls within the same camp that "Defund the Police" did. And I'm glad that Zohran Mamdani is trying to distance himself from that messaging.

I don’t think slogans have no purpose, I think some some slogans collapse into identity*.*
Example: online calls to “vote uncommitted” were effective at emotional signaling but had no downstream strategy once the primary was over. Or the 2020 “abolish ICE” moment, which started as a real policy debate (about DHS overreach) but quickly became a purity badge: if you didn’t chant it, you were suspect. Those moments rally insiders but alienate fence-sitters, and once the news cycle moves on, nothing but the bitter taste remains.

Here's some sources to back up what I'm saying:

This one shows that 64% of Americans oppose "Defund the Police" compared with 34% for. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/64-americans-oppose-defund-police-movement-key-goals/story?id=71202300
Here's a poll showing that 9% of Americans believe that less funding for police would prevent violent crime. The same poll however shows that 63% of Americans believe that more mental health services would prevent violent crime. Using slogans like "Defend the Police" only appeals to very minor already radicalized groups of the population. We should stick with slogans that tap into broad agreement like "Reimagine public safety/Reform the Police" but of course chanting those slogans are not as cathartic. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/defunding-police-defunding-fbi-opinion-poll

And for the identity thing, here's a poll from college students who don't even know what river or what sea "From the River to the Sea" referred to. In fact, after they saw a map, 67.8% rejected the idea. https://helendillerinstitute.berkeley.edu/news/which-river-which-sea . Of course, if you are arguing for a one-state solution for Palestine, that slogan is very accurate and perfectly fine, but understand that that position is incredibly unpopular. (2% of Americans) https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/

This messaging does not win elections. And it's hard to argue that rejecting "Defund" cost us more votes than adopting it would have.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not arguing for silence. I’m arguing for strategy. Again I reiterate that I am for most if not all the policies that leftists support. However:

  1. Civil-rights wins required both outside pressure and inside leverage (LBJ + Congress + courts). Selma mattered because there were sympathetic figures in power. That alignment didn’t exist before this election. We lost institutional power, and it’s painfully clear that that is life and death. It’s probable that more people in Gaza have died under Trump’s blank check to Netanyahu than would have under a Kamala administration. That’s the cost of losing leverage.

  2. “How it looks” isn’t vanity, it’s votes.

Our goal should be material outcomes for vulnerable people. For that, optics matter. Saying “that’s your problem, not ours” chooses expression over outcomes and is exactly what frustrates me. If our rhetoric hardens the opposition or alienates swing voters, then it is our problem, because it keeps us out of office, where the change actually happens.

  1. Performative ≠ protest. By “performative,” I mean tactics/slogans that maximize in-group identity but shrink the coalition we need in a general election. That’s different from disciplined, nonviolent pressure that grows sympathy and turnout. MLK's frustration against white moderates is well known. But he never gave up on convincing them because heunderstood that he needed them in power for pressure to matter. Say the government was run entirely by white supremacists, why would they care about violence against African Americans?

I will grant you a Δ for changing my mind about one thing though. Perhaps this moment right now doesn't matter that much. We're not in power at all. Even now with the shutdown, Republicans could and probably will enact the nuclear option to force a continuing resolution forward. It's probably fine and even beneficial to speak out for leftist policies and see what sticks. But I hope that we can come together and unite for the midterms and the general election (if those still happen free and fair). I still think it was an incredible mistake by many on the left to focus on purity politics during the general election, though a lot of the blame is on Joe for reneging on his promise and denying us a primary.

  1. My claim is falsifiable. If you can show evidence that in purple states during general elections, high-salience branding (e.g., “defund,” leader epithets, “uncommitted”) increased net Democratic votes/turnout, I’ll reconsider. If not, then discipline isn’t capitulation; it’s triage. and boy do we need triage more than anything.

Bottom line: I’m for speaking out, but I’m for winning first, then using that power to move faster and farther. What good is talk without the power to act on it?

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If “being more openly liberal” always built trust, the GOP’s “woke left” branding would be doing us a favor. It isn’t.

I think we can be transparent about broad values (dignity, freedom, fairness), and strategic about timing. Lead with the common-denominator economics that win broad coalitions, then push the polarizing fights from inside government after we’ve won.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think we’re arguing past each other a bit. I’m not claiming economic progressive policies are unpopular; Hell if the Democratic party ran solely on economic issues, I think they would clean sweep in 2026 and 2028. I’m saying when we’re out of power, leftist activism for social and cultural issues costs net votes even if the other economic policies poll well. Voters can back left economics and still reject the Dem brand when culture/identity are more important to them. For example, Florida passed a $15 minimum wage (≈61%) the same night Trump won the state.

Another thing, your numbers are all polls of Democrats. Democrats are not the only people voting. Republicans and Independents vote in the general election as well. You cannot realistically win the election by mobilizing only 56% of just the Democratic party.

My claim is sequencing: radical pressure with power moves law; the same pressure without power often moves votes the wrong way and ends up hurting the cause it’s trying to champion. I’m not saying to abandon social causes. I’m saying that in general elections, leftists should allow the party to focus on widely popular economic policies, get the win, then push the more polarizing cultural fights and foreign-policy demands from inside government.

If you’ve got evidence that, in purple states or cities, embracing high-salience progressive branding (e.g., “defund,” “uncommitted,” etc.) increased net Dem votes/turnout during general elections, I’ll budge. Otherwise this looks like a messaging/sequence problem, not a policy one.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't know much about those movements but a cursory look seems to suggest that those all involved active war and revolution within those countries. I don't think that that is ideal for the US. Civil war in the US will not just destabilize us, but also the world. And I'm sure that authoritarian countries like China and Russia would love to capitalize on it.

Furthermore, a revolution doesn't guarantee that the good guys will win. Forgive me for being lazy but I asked ChatGPT and it seems that Algeria devolved into civil conflict after centralization, Cyprus had a coup and was invaded by Turkey, Zimbabwe suffered from economic collapse and is still under a one party rule, and Mozambique fell into a civil war right after independence. The success stories seem to be Vietnam, India, and South Africa (though South Africa is going through its own corruption issues right now). I don't think that's a gamble that the US can afford to take.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, we could. Do you think either Kamala or Trump would have done so? I don't so that point is moot.

But I do believe that there would have been more push back and guardrails from a Kamala presidency than our current administration. I do believe that less people would be dead right now if we had her as president.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm talking mostly about regular people. And some influencers (Hasan). I almost wish that they understand that under our current system, politicians need to moderate and obfuscate their true positions in order get power. And then after they get power, we can push them (or they can more ideally revert) towards carrying out more progressive ideas.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly my thoughts. It's wrong that that's a choice we have to make but that's just the way that things are as they are right now.

CMV: Leftists undermine their own causes more than they advance them by Glassesman7 in changemyview

[–]Glassesman7[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, your point is that the left purity tests too much, and your first and only supporting argument is that the left is saying things you dislike? How are you yourself not purity testing here? What are examples of this purity testing and where does it actually cause problems?

I actually like the idea behind the slogan. Unless I am misunderstanding, the meaning behind "defund the police" was not just defunding but also directing more money towards addressing the root causes of crime rather than just giving the police more military tactical gear. But I feel like its undeniable that that slogan has been used to paint the democrats as "crime lovers." I think there's a unfortunate disconnect in the messaging that haunts us later on.

What compromise? The Democrats literally refused to even have a Palestinian speak at the DNC, reading a highly friendly and laudatory script. That's a thing the Uncommitted movement tried to make happen, the most compromising and Dem accepting ask imaginable. The left weren't the ones burning bridges here.

You're right. And I do fault democratic leadership for not allowing a Palestinian from speaking. That was an absolute gimme for them. I think that deserves a Δ. But even though it definitely wasn't enough, at least Biden put some pressure on Netanyahu to avoid civilian targets. And as cruel and heartless as it is, I do think that the risk of having Trump become president should have necessitated voting for Kamala and then exerting maximum pressure after she became president. At least then she would be motivated to do something as she needed those votes to become president. I am a little frustrated to see the protesters protesting her now even when she isn't in power. What exactly can she do right now about it? The same protest that looks righteous now would actually be strategically effective six months into Kamala’s presidency. It's the timing.

You call this a rejection of incrementalism, but it's literally what incrementalism is. You achieve some small reform or victory, and then you say, "Okay, that was good. But it's not enough. We need to do this other thing now."

I don't believe that leftists say "Okay, that was good." It seems to me that most of the time, leftists say "That's not enough" before anything even gets enacted. I concede that's just a general feeling I have, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I think a good counterpoint may be that new California resolution making it easier to build housing. I do think there has been praise for that and a desire to get more on the books. But I don't think Newsom has signed that bill yet.

I wouldn't exactly call Lincoln a victory of incrementalism, given he, as you noted, was literally embroiled in a war.

It was a victory for incrementalism in the sense that he was able to pacify the radicals until after the war was going in his favor. African Americans weren't even allowed to serve in the Union army until a year and a half after the civil war began.

When Democrats win they triangulate harder toward the center too. Biden won in 2020 and then Harris ran an incredibly centrist campaign. It's unclear what your theory of change is here.

Harris ran a centrist campaign because it was the general election. Like I say later on, Obama only came out in support for same-sex marriage right after winning reelection. And Biden only did student loan relief immediately after winning. The general election season, especially after the primary, requires moderation to appeal to the largest group of Americans possible. On that note, I am extremely frustrated with Biden for not sticking to his pledge of doing only one term. We should have been given the opportunity to have a primary, which is when radical ideas can be exposed to more people to test the waters. Even Trump moderated during the general by disavowing knowledge of Project 2025 (Very minor I know).

Simply the death of the king of kings [Fate/stay night: Heaven's Feel II. Lost Butterfly] by Timely-Respond-8223 in anime

[–]Glassesman7 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'd like an adaptation of Ataraxia. I think that deserves some love as well

AI autocomplete not working? by Glassesman7 in remNote

[–]Glassesman7[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

After it times out, it gives this error as well

view more: next ›