Skip to main content

The Left is Done With the Whole 'Alt-Left' Thing, Right?


I used Twitter for the first time in 2013 to win a CD from The Liquid Crystal Project.  It didn't become a regular part of my social media consumption until the inauguration. It's been informative; hilarious; useful for helping me to refine my perspectives on different topics; unexpectedly hopeful at times; seeming conspiracy theories that turn out to be true; and straight up conspiracy theories and bullshit. Through the back and forths in comment threads it offers a snapshot of different 'movements'.  It's also really easy to see how trivial differences are magnified while obscuring important ones. One of the strangest things I've seen is people not just arguing about the existence of the "alt-left" but arguing with specific people that they are in fact representatives of the "alt-left". Now that Fragile Ego has used it it's over right?  Now that the left has invented this term for him the left must be done with it.


or 'femi-nazi' it sounds just as stupid,


To be clear, the same applies to the term 'BernieBro".  It's a strange thing to label a group of multi-ethnic progressives that includes women.  There are absolutely sexist 'bros' who continue to support Bernie, but there are sexist people who supported Hillary.  Sexism and racism don't exist just in the hearts of Bernie primary supporters, they are in the heart of the Democratic Party; these principles are part of the foundation of this country.  The first time anyone blocked me on Twitter was a woman decrying Bernie's racist lack of support for reparations when I pointed out that the position was shared by Hillary and Obama.  If you have felt a need to use these terms, in the interest of honest conversation, please stop.  If you fee the need to continue, consider these words from Davis Shuster:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is