[Video Review and Essays] Web Reviews VII: The Youtube Awakens

St.Just

Lacking all conviction
Validated User
I actually agree with you on this. I consider myself pretty solidly left, but the whole leftist thing of speaking of "liberals" with contempt as inevitable Fascist allies or Fascist-lite really pisses me off. In part because it mirrors right-wing rhetoric so precisely, and in part because the term liberal is itself so imprecise and changes depending on who's speaking and when. It seems, more than anything, to be one of those Barnham words that everyone will hear differently. Usually when pressed, people will say that the distinction is where you stand on Capitalism vs. Socialism. But I know plenty of white socialist bros who are lousy on matters of race, queerness, and gender. They're left on economics, and right-wing on "identity politics." (In fact, people like that make up a good portion of the alt-light crowd.) Why aren't they included in the "Damned liberals" category?

There is definitely a category of liberal who will, as MLK said, always pick order over justice. But the term itself is so broad and malleable that I don't think that they define the word.
I mean, there's a song about it

My understand when it's used as a term of scorn is that...well, if we want to go back up the history in the American context, it's a northern Democrat who supported Vietnam and opposed MLK. Or anyone who wrote in the New Republic during the Clinton years. Or the entire cultural logic that leads to the Sister Souljah moment and executing Ricky Ray Rector, come to think of it.

The sort of people who talk loudly about how not racist they are, but would never consider living in a majority-minority neighborhood or sending their child to a school with any significant ethnic diversity, basically. Or ostensibly progressive media publications whose editors and owners go into a state of siege when the writers try to unionize (or the same with university administrations and grad students). Being fine with gay people as long as their not, you know, weird about it. Being more concerned with politesse and civility than war crimes and starvation. The writings of Johnathan Chait in particular, for reasons I'm somewhat unclear on. And so on.

(inevitably, as with any political term with negative valence, it's also used to mean "person I don't like")
 

Solarn

Registered User
Validated User
I mean, there's a song about it

My understand when it's used as a term of scorn is that...well, if we want to go back up the history in the American context, it's a northern Democrat who supported Vietnam and opposed MLK. Or anyone who wrote in the New Republic during the Clinton years. Or the entire cultural logic that leads to the Sister Souljah moment and executing Ricky Ray Rector, come to think of it.

The sort of people who talk loudly about how not racist they are, but would never consider living in a majority-minority neighborhood or sending their child to a school with any significant ethnic diversity, basically. Or ostensibly progressive media publications whose editors and owners go into a state of siege when the writers try to unionize (or the same with university administrations and grad students). Being fine with gay people as long as their not, you know, weird about it. Being more concerned with politesse and civility than war crimes and starvation. The writings of Johnathan Chait in particular, for reasons I'm somewhat unclear on. And so on.

(inevitably, as with any political term with negative valence, it's also used to mean "person I don't like")
Yeah, but that's like... saying that all socialists are untrustworthy and will betray their own principles to authoritarianism because I know a guy who stans the USSR and denies the Holodomor. Sure, he's a socialist, a very stupid socialist, but he doesn't represent the full extent of the ideology and you know that.
 

Grumpygoat

Registered User
Validated User
Yeah, but that's like... saying that all socialists are untrustworthy and will betray their own principles to authoritarianism because I know a guy who stans the USSR and denies the Holodomor. Sure, he's a socialist, a very stupid socialist, but he doesn't represent the full extent of the ideology and you know that.
Or in my case, the most prominent "socialists" I know are wealthy computer programmers pulling in six figures and living in the lap of luxury in Florida, where one of them constantly's uploading photos of the beach paradise he lives at. Obviously that guy's a pretty terrible example of a socialist, but that's where his politics lie.
 

St.Just

Lacking all conviction
Validated User
Yeah, but that's like... saying that all socialists are untrustworthy and will betray their own principles to authoritarianism because I know a guy who stans the USSR and denies the Holodomor. Sure, he's a socialist, a very stupid socialist, but he doesn't represent the full extent of the ideology and you know that.
Oh, absolutely. But when people like him were a real going concern there was a whole vocabulary of invective developed to refer to them (Or I mean, today when they show up on forums I read or similar-tankie, Stalinist, sectarian, nazbol, etc, etc). Now, part of that is the left's obsession with doctrinal disputes and schisming itself to perfection, of course.

Anyway, in terms of a more useful definition, was talking about this with someone IRL, and they mentioned the distinction Mike Duncan draws in his series on 1848.

The liberal is most interested in the political question, Process and Norms, as we'd call them today. They want a constitution, guarantees of freedom of the press and the sanctity of property, universal suffrage, an end to suffrage.

the leftist is most interested in the social question, or Policy and Power, to modernize. They care less about a constitution than food in the hands of the unemployed and destitute, a Ministry of Progress, an abolition of privilege.

(In 1848, the liberals generally used their momentary ascendancy to crush the left with whatever violence was necessary, and then found themselves helpless against the counterrevoution. Leftists, as the saying goes, took this lesson deeply to heart.)
 

Isator Levie

Registered User
Validated User
Kings and Generals has been knocking it out of the park lately:
Darn it, I wanted to get that one.

Oh well.

A video essay on Deep Space Nine's portrayal of the redemption of Garak

Another LegalEagle review concerned with the Mueller report, this time on remaining open questions and what might the next steps be

And a little historical documentary on the so-called longest year in history
 

Dzhay

Trust a flumph.
Validated User
Re: politics tangent. Part of the issue is that people rarely mean the same things by most of these terms, especially if they're from different countries (or even regions therein).

Another related part is that the major political parties (or maybe even the major named political positions) are probably somewhat unnatural collections of viewpoints that don't really reflect the first principal components of the actual distribution of attitudes to whatever we're considering "political" .

I might start a thread for this...
 

Isator Levie

Registered User
Validated User
Newest from Phelous' Miraculous Merchandise Zone is a look at the obscure MovieCD format.

Maven's latest video reviewing the novel This is my Blood

And an Animalogic video about... eagles
 

Coyote's Own

RPG.net's friendly neighborhood Nuwisha.
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Kyle talks about To Be or Not to Be


I don't know if Cinema Antifa is gag or a real series, but it sounds like good therapy for Kyle (adn quite a few of us).
 
Top Bottom