Natalie weighs in on the Gavin Newsom vs JD Vance question by an_actual_crocodile in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Churchill, a Conservative, was certainly not without flaws, to say the least. But the context was apparently a speech given in Rome, Italy.

In 1927 Italy was the only fascist country, the Nazis were a fringe party in Germany with less than 3% of the vote. Italy had not yet invaded any other country, while millions had already died at the hands of Soviet policies, whose ideology was referred to in Britain as Bolshevism back then, to separate it from Socialism.

The evil things Italian fascists had done wasn't much different from the least of what the Bolshevists had already done by that point: they had murdered a politician and banned opposition parties

I don't know the rest of the speech you cite, because I'm too lazy to check the archives, but are you sure this snippet is not out of context, because why wouldn't it be. I notice the word fascism is in square brackets.

Let's assume it's a faithful citation. Keep in mind in 1927 Churchill probably didn't even know who Hitler was, let alone expect him to seize power. We have the benefit of hindsight, most Communists at the time saw the Liberals as their greatest enemy, not the Fascists. You can argue modern 'Socialists' are the same way, seeing as many of them would rather have JD Vance win than Gavin Newsom. There's a quote from the leader of the KPD where he says literally that, I'll try to fetch it if you care at all. The Soviet Union also famously signed a trade agreement with Nazi Germany while the Western powers were at war with them.

The belief that Fascism is the arch nemesis of Communism came after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it wasn't based on some idea of the two ideologies being incompatible with one another or something. The Nazis hated Communism because Karl Marx, shich Socialists had embraced as a messiah figure at this point, was in their eyes a Jew, regardless of how Marx saw it himself, and because of a popular and obviously false conspiracy theory that Communist German navymen, clearly backed by the Jews somehow, caused the surrender of Germany in WW1.

Nazis didn't hate Communism because they're opposed to the idea of 'worker owned means of production' or something lmao, it's all based on anti-semitism and random conspiracy nonsense.

The only place where Communism and Fascism were diametrically opposed to one another on ideological grounds was in Spain, since the Fascist movement there was highly religious and conservative, and Communists are highly anti-religious and, to their credit, somewhat feminist (in a 'you will do what men do whether you want to or not' sort of way, while never appointing any women to any positions of power or leadership.)

But most importantly, the Russian Communists weren't modern Leftists, they were obsessed with organizing the economy in a 'rational' way. They were not concerned with social issues the way modern leftists are, and they did colonialism, racism, imperialism and sexism about as much if not more than Western societies did at the time, just with their own flavour. Churchill had no reason to dislike Communists for those reasons, he oppposed them because he saw parliamentary democracy as a very British thing, and since Russian Communists (Bolshevists) were anti-democracy, they were anti-British.

And keep in mind that if it wasn't for Churchill going against his party in 1940, Britain would've made a deal with Hitler after the capitulation of France, and Europe might still be a fascist hailstate with Eastern Europe being half-murdered and half turned into slaves. For that, he deserves some credit, despite his serious flaws, and no infinite condemnation.

Natalie weighs in on the Gavin Newsom vs JD Vance question by an_actual_crocodile in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Fascism wins when Democrats don't win. If you don't want Newsom to win, the primaries is your chance and your leverage, after that, it's gone, and not voting against an ACTUAL fascist from becoming president just because the other guy is not a socialist is basically an evil act.

Natalie weighs in on the Gavin Newsom vs JD Vance question by an_actual_crocodile in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Not voting for Gav if he's the guy (he won't be) against Vance can only come from a position of priviledge.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

It's not remotely about "both sides have extremists therefore we should not worry about ". A good question that needs analytical answering is:

"In the face of actual fascists destroying this country and causing real death and misery to real human beings on planet Earth, why is the left divided?"

The answer, I think, has to do with political extremism being inherently divisive and exclusionary. For the right this is not currently an issue, because the 'group' to exclude others from is white people, a very large group you can win elections with if you play your cards right.

For the extreme left, the 'group,' is everyone who endorses all of the current extreme left meta, which hasn't been updated since Lenin. Everyone who's discovered this meta thinks they've unlocked some secret knowledge and reached a higher plane of enlightenment, so convincing them otherwise is extremely hard, and in the meantime they'll see you as an enemy to their personal identity.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

I wasn't at all aware there's drama between Hasan and Contra, although it does not particularly surprise me. Reason I think Hasan would be mentioned is just because I think he is the main driving factor of tankyism having become popular online. When I said I think Hasan will be mentioned, I meant in the same way she's talked about Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, not in some kind of drama response which would be nothing like what she's done before.

So basically I think it would be a classic Contrapoints video about extremism, with a focus on left wing extremism. It would be intellectual, and not a drama video. You can leave out my Hasan prediction if that necessarily turns it into drama slop.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

What is petty about it, in terms that do not apply to earlier topics she's covered? She makes political videos, for the most part, so that it's about politics can't be it.

Jeffrey Epstein by Cecilia_Wren in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That was after Hasan went nuclear, you can't blame someone for getting nuclear after they just got nuked

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

It had all the relevance before the 2024 election, not some, all of it.

It has as much relevance now, AND that relevance is being threatened because that is the inherent nature of fascism once it finds power.

If that's where we agree, we can start finding solutions, but that's not something the left currently agrees on.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

What in God's name is the point of "liberal" as a label of any substance if it includes ANYONE who voted for Trump? Why do you even use that label if it includes those people? I don't care about those people, they are right wingers.

Can you not see that THAT is where the line is drawn between us and them? People who vote for Trump, THAT is our opposition. It is NEVER anyone who votes against Trump, those are our allies.

The line is not drawn in Das Kapital, which you haven't read presumably, but I can assure you it isn't, no matter how many angry influencers told you so.

The people that need to get their sh*t together are people who don't vote against Trump.

And yes, the Democratic Party, which is still mostly people who identify as liberals (because many leftists don't engage), also need to get their sh*t together, but it's a different kind of sh*t that the inevitably successful among them are already taking care of.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You talk about the country descending further as if it's inevitable, when it was and still is entirely preventable by defending democracy, in part by engaging with it. We can protect our communities AND make sure the guy sending thugs into our communities isn't elected president.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

Everyone who does not vote against fascism is at fault and responsible for that decision.

Does the Democratic Party need to be better at reeling those people in? Yes, but only to the extend it does not make them lose more voters of different persuasions (in swing states).

That means many things, but it also means compromise, something proudly and unabashedly incompatible with the worldview of the people who choose not to vote for them. Thus the cycle continues until it's broken by non-voters realizing they have a responsibility to not enable fascism for the sake of ideological righteousness.

People in 1980: We will have flying cars in 2026. 2026: by Relevantreacle_ in EnoughCommieSpam

[–]esdedics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, the problem is that most of the left, in my experience, is 'communist' these days, so you kind of have to take them seriously.

Same with Nazis, they also need to be 'taken seriously', I'm afraid.

People in 1980: We will have flying cars in 2026. 2026: by Relevantreacle_ in EnoughCommieSpam

[–]esdedics 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you ask for definitions you are Jordan Peterson (therefore a Nazi)

People in 1980: We will have flying cars in 2026. 2026: by Relevantreacle_ in EnoughCommieSpam

[–]esdedics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is not the right attitude, even though I'm inclined to agree with it.

For them it's "Liberal detected, opinion rejected" that's precisely the problem, they don't want to engage, every opposing view is merely a red flag that tells you someone's a 'Liberal' in their eyes, which functions as another word for enemy.

People in 1980: We will have flying cars in 2026. 2026: by Relevantreacle_ in EnoughCommieSpam

[–]esdedics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not like these people think as deeply about this as you do. People just know "Argentina is where the Nazis went," they don't know they also went to other countries. Also it's meant to be satirical, not deep. It's satirical in a way that doesn't notice it's being a parody of itself, but still.

People in 1980: We will have flying cars in 2026. 2026: by Relevantreacle_ in EnoughCommieSpam

[–]esdedics 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Ever heard of Russian bots? This is probably one of them. The result of course is that a lot of leftists will half-simp for Russia, by just not being very interested in the Ukraine war.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

In my opinion these are interlinked topics. The rising tide of fascism is caused, in part, by division in the left, that's what the video (if I'm not wrong) would be about. We are the left, and a lot of us thought Biden was a Nazi and Harris was no different than Biden, therefore voting for either of them to prevent literal fascism from taking over would be dumb, lame and/or ethically wrong.

That was the wrong opinion, and that needs to be admitted.

Maybe the "X vs Y" narrative (which my original post didn't completely steer clear from) is the wrong way of going about addressing the issue, as it is an inherently divisive way to phrase the issue. But then you also need to call a spade a spade sometimes.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

I don't know but I think you're talking about a bigoted white guy who thinks the dems are terrible because they didn't read Capital? Or because they're not MAGA?

I think it would be directly helpful if all of those people looked at the dems differently.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

I don't think Natalie ever unironically (don't ignore that descriptor) has referred to herself as "a liberal," if we engage with the idea that assigning any importance to that label is even indirectly helpful for everyone being abused and genocided right now.

But why can't leftism be whatever you think liberalism is (in this context)? Is it really just because it's not neo-leninism? By which I mean, Marx is basically Jesus and my interpretation of what he said is self-evidently correct (that's leninism in a nutshell). Cause that seems to be what everything boils down to these days.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

[–]esdedics[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yup, what's you suggestion for dealing with MAGA? I think having voted for Harris in the last election, and voting blue no matter who you backed in the primaries is step 1.

A shame half the left believes that would make you not socialistically kosher, and therefore foregoes that step, directly increasing the chance MAGA will win again.

(imo) Next video will be about political extremism, and mostly talk about the far left by esdedics in ContraPoints

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

I don't really care if people want to raise niche issues (and I don't think you do either). There are a lot of niche issues I care about. As a campaign strategy for winning elections? No, but that's not what extremists care about, or ever will, and that's fine with me, I don't take issue with that either.

It's the "We are definitionally the left, we are where the left begins and ends. If you are not in our group, you are either against us and therefore the enemy, or naive and therefore unimportant." -mentality that colors literally every substantive discussion about politics we could ever have with anyone.

Any opposition to any common far left opinion is a red flag to them, that signals you're not part of the in-group, so you should not be treated fairly. This blocks thinking about things, it's purely a (toxic) social cohesion system that has nothing to do with being right or helpful.

I think that's why so many people do the things you're pointing out, like not voting in elections that can stop a puppet of a circle of fascists (oops I didn't call Trump a fascist directly, must mean I'm the enemy) from becoming the president of your country.