That's not what they said. Even if you rachet this headline back a bit, you'd be giving it the worst possible reading.
Want to know how to criticize your comrades without things devolving into struggle sessions and splits? Don't assume the worst intentions, especially when they have a track record of good stuff.
bull fucking shit. Their calling card is to be the first ones to champion stupid pol like discourse. They dismiss and ridicule intersectionalism half the time they talk about it. Without ever reading Settlers, they've criticised on the basis of it being 'lib'.
They're not my comrades and what literally is their track record of good stuff?
How did they decry cop hating? Why is whatever they said in this episode definitive, but all their other comments shitting on cops don't matter?
I'm not saying they're your comrades. The point is that it's never good to start inter-leftist shit flinging over misrepresentations and bad-faith interpretations.
The discussion I remember was about the tension between support for defunding police and polls showing that a lot of poor and POC folks did not want police removed from their neighborhoods. I think they mentioned that crime -- real crime, like assaults, burglaries, robberies, and car thefts -- is something people do care about, and that police are basically the only response to this at the moment. They may have mentioned how neighborhoods that have had so much cut from them already are hesitant to see more taken away. They definitely mentioned that work as a cop is one of the last high-paying, secure jobs you can get without a ton of education, that plenty of cops come from poor neighborhoods, and that the loss of "good" jobs is another reason for hesitance.
Other places like :citations-needed: have had better versions of the same conversation, sure. Nothing about this struck me as reactionary, though -- just a bit underdeveloped. You can talk about what groups of people think without endorsing it.
Even if you rachet this headline back a bit, you’d be giving it the worst possible reading.
There's nothing more normal in the world than a bunch of terminally online leftists dissecting a throw-away line in order to prove, once and for all, that the high profile people who openly advocate and campaign for a bunch of legitimately good stuff, are actually all hateful vindictive fascists.
Want to know how to criticize your comrades without things devolving into struggle sessions and splits?
That's not what they said. Even if you rachet this headline back a bit, you'd be giving it the worst possible reading.
Want to know how to criticize your comrades without things devolving into struggle sessions and splits? Don't assume the worst intentions, especially when they have a track record of good stuff.
'Not what they said'
bull fucking shit. Their calling card is to be the first ones to champion stupid pol like discourse. They dismiss and ridicule intersectionalism half the time they talk about it. Without ever reading Settlers, they've criticised on the basis of it being 'lib'.
They're not my comrades and what literally is their track record of good stuff?
How did they decry cop hating? Why is whatever they said in this episode definitive, but all their other comments shitting on cops don't matter?
I'm not saying they're your comrades. The point is that it's never good to start inter-leftist shit flinging over misrepresentations and bad-faith interpretations.
deleted by creator
:jesse-wtf:
do this for Brie Joy and Nina Turner or whoever the fuck, I'm sure you'd be calling them comrades with one or two mishaps.
I'm in favor of criticizing people based on what they actually said, and for considering their track record if they have a bad take, yes.
Why don’t you actually say what they actually said to see if it’s all that different from what I described.
Come on.
What did they say, then? I already listed what they said ffs. All you did was deny what I wrote.
more like
:eric-andre:
What did they really say?
The discussion I remember was about the tension between support for defunding police and polls showing that a lot of poor and POC folks did not want police removed from their neighborhoods. I think they mentioned that crime -- real crime, like assaults, burglaries, robberies, and car thefts -- is something people do care about, and that police are basically the only response to this at the moment. They may have mentioned how neighborhoods that have had so much cut from them already are hesitant to see more taken away. They definitely mentioned that work as a cop is one of the last high-paying, secure jobs you can get without a ton of education, that plenty of cops come from poor neighborhoods, and that the loss of "good" jobs is another reason for hesitance.
Other places like :citations-needed: have had better versions of the same conversation, sure. Nothing about this struck me as reactionary, though -- just a bit underdeveloped. You can talk about what groups of people think without endorsing it.
There's nothing more normal in the world than a bunch of terminally online leftists dissecting a throw-away line in order to prove, once and for all, that the high profile people who openly advocate and campaign for a bunch of legitimately good stuff, are actually all hateful vindictive fascists.
Yes, but only so I can do the exact opposite.