I agree that Trump is the clear “worse” option in this election, but this post has a lot of left-leaning bias that makes it feel unconvincing. Several examples:
We see false equivalence playing out in the political arena when commentators claim there is “radicalism” on both sides in reference to radical woke leftists quibbling about pronouns in relation to a mainstream right-wing presidential candidate promising to use the military against the “enemy within”.
You took one of the tamest aspects of the radical left here. That quote by Trump is really pernicious but it could have easily been compared to parallel views of the radical left (who e.g. believe that people who voice certain opinions online should be arrested).
See? There’s antisemitism on both sides
There is antisemitism amongst the pro-Palestine crowd; getting numbers might be hard but I think the easier argument to make is that Kamala is pro-Israel anyway, just less dramatically so.
There is one candidate, Kamala Harris, who cares about expertise (particularly her economic plan, which is lauded by experts), critical thinking and collaboration (her will to work together on the border with Republicans).
She also took power without a single vote by lying to the American public that Biden was mentally healthy until it was too late to have a fair election. It’s hard to believe she would have won the nomination normally, given her 2020 performance. I’m also a little skeptical about her economic plan being that good (aren’t price controls in there?) but I don’t know nearly enough about economics to know for sure.
I think the best aspect of this post is that Nature study.
Thanks for your comment, the post itself is meant to challenge the reader to question what is really bias, and what is actually an even-handed view with apparent bias, due to the shifted centre. But I certainly take your point, beginning in a clearly partisan manner might not have been the best approach before putting it in context.
I do think there are defences that can be made of the points you raise.
You took one of the tamest aspects of the radical left here
I agree I have taken a tame aspect of the radical left, and the claim you point to, that Kamala usurped power in an undemocratic and calculated way is a much more serious accusation. The thing is though, as serious as the claim is, it lasted about a week in the news cycle, largely because it’s a spurious interpretation of events with no real evidence, and wasn’t politically shifting the needle, throughout that week (I was watching Fox’s coverage, I often do) Kamala was surging in the polls, and Fox moved back to their usual fear-mongering about immigrants and sane-washing whatever abhorrent statement Trump had most recently made. The trans issue however is a perennial touchstone that has been used as the consistent example of radical left woke-ness for years, and throughout this campaign.
There is antisemitism amongst the pro-Palestine crowd
I don’t doubt you are correct that anti-Israel sentiment can stray into anti-semitism. But the point is about motivations, one side is motivated by sympathy for a population with 10s of thousands of people being killed over a year, and millions being displaced and having their homes destroyed, the other is motivated by white supremacy. Do you not see this as a false equivalence?
In the numerous conversations I’ve had and heard, whenever people refer to the radical left as a counterpoint to the radical right, 99% of the time the examples used are the trans issue, or support for Palestine. I have literally never had Kamala’s ascendence to candidacy used as an example of radical leftism—it’s more seen as a risk-averse aspect of democratic orthodoxy and adherence to a boring status-quo, and as mentioned was a short-lived talking point.
In short, I think pronouns and Palestine were fair comparisons. But, again I agree that I should have spent some time explaining the problem of both-sidesism and the shifted centre before acting in accordance with the principles with which the post concludes.
I don’t know nearly enough about economics to know for sure.
I’m in the same position. It’s at these points where I defer to experts, which is what I have advised in the post.
Thanks again for your comment. I hope my comment hasn’t been too argumentative, it’s meant to explain as an extension of the post.
I think you misread my post; I didn’t mention Kamala Harris’ rightful nomination as an opinion of the far left (the far left doesn’t even like her). Instead I mentioned something that I can no longer find evidence for and might actually be wrong (that the far left supports people being arrested for far-right opinions held online). I’d like to update this to people on the far left supporting people who have conservative opinions being exposed and fired. I brought up the issue with Kamala specifically in response to your pair of paragraphs describing each candidate.
I don’t want to engage with the rest right now because, as I said, I don’t want Trump elected and don’t want to write anything that would increase the chance of that occurring. I might reply in a few days.
I agree that Trump is the clear “worse” option in this election, but this post has a lot of left-leaning bias that makes it feel unconvincing. Several examples:
You took one of the tamest aspects of the radical left here. That quote by Trump is really pernicious but it could have easily been compared to parallel views of the radical left (who e.g. believe that people who voice certain opinions online should be arrested).
There is antisemitism amongst the pro-Palestine crowd; getting numbers might be hard but I think the easier argument to make is that Kamala is pro-Israel anyway, just less dramatically so.
She also took power without a single vote by lying to the American public that Biden was mentally healthy until it was too late to have a fair election. It’s hard to believe she would have won the nomination normally, given her 2020 performance. I’m also a little skeptical about her economic plan being that good (aren’t price controls in there?) but I don’t know nearly enough about economics to know for sure.
I think the best aspect of this post is that Nature study.
Thanks for your comment, the post itself is meant to challenge the reader to question what is really bias, and what is actually an even-handed view with apparent bias, due to the shifted centre. But I certainly take your point, beginning in a clearly partisan manner might not have been the best approach before putting it in context.
I do think there are defences that can be made of the points you raise.
I agree I have taken a tame aspect of the radical left, and the claim you point to, that Kamala usurped power in an undemocratic and calculated way is a much more serious accusation. The thing is though, as serious as the claim is, it lasted about a week in the news cycle, largely because it’s a spurious interpretation of events with no real evidence, and wasn’t politically shifting the needle, throughout that week (I was watching Fox’s coverage, I often do) Kamala was surging in the polls, and Fox moved back to their usual fear-mongering about immigrants and sane-washing whatever abhorrent statement Trump had most recently made. The trans issue however is a perennial touchstone that has been used as the consistent example of radical left woke-ness for years, and throughout this campaign.
I don’t doubt you are correct that anti-Israel sentiment can stray into anti-semitism. But the point is about motivations, one side is motivated by sympathy for a population with 10s of thousands of people being killed over a year, and millions being displaced and having their homes destroyed, the other is motivated by white supremacy. Do you not see this as a false equivalence?
In the numerous conversations I’ve had and heard, whenever people refer to the radical left as a counterpoint to the radical right, 99% of the time the examples used are the trans issue, or support for Palestine. I have literally never had Kamala’s ascendence to candidacy used as an example of radical leftism—it’s more seen as a risk-averse aspect of democratic orthodoxy and adherence to a boring status-quo, and as mentioned was a short-lived talking point.
In short, I think pronouns and Palestine were fair comparisons. But, again I agree that I should have spent some time explaining the problem of both-sidesism and the shifted centre before acting in accordance with the principles with which the post concludes.
I’m in the same position. It’s at these points where I defer to experts, which is what I have advised in the post.
Thanks again for your comment. I hope my comment hasn’t been too argumentative, it’s meant to explain as an extension of the post.
I think you misread my post; I didn’t mention Kamala Harris’ rightful nomination as an opinion of the far left (the far left doesn’t even like her). Instead I mentioned something that I can no longer find evidence for and might actually be wrong (that the far left supports people being arrested for far-right opinions held online). I’d like to update this to people on the far left supporting people who have conservative opinions being exposed and fired. I brought up the issue with Kamala specifically in response to your pair of paragraphs describing each candidate.
I don’t want to engage with the rest right now because, as I said, I don’t want Trump elected and don’t want to write anything that would increase the chance of that occurring. I might reply in a few days.
Sorry, you’re right, I did misread that—do you mind if I edit my answer so it addresses your point properly? Happy to continue after the election.