the liberal has no beliefs. She believes in nothing other than aligning with what she perceives is the socially acceptable left-liberal position. It should have been obvious she no longer had a soul when she was willingly hanging out with Hillary Clinton. Contrapoints is not a person with beliefs other than she deserves an audience. She’s an empty vessel, she’s a husk who wants attention. She wants a personal mythology and adoring fans. Everything she says is run through a filter to calculate the best possible audience retention. This is a person for whom beliefs and internal conviction are not an avenue to change the world, but rather beliefs are a malleable problem to be solved by choosing the correct postures in order to gain some mythical mainstream appeal.
The liberal is someone who believes there is a correct position, not necessarily correct on its own merits or based upon personal experience, but instead it’s correct by virtue of how much of an audience it can get. But it’s not even properly calibrated, it’s based on the perception of what a broad liberal audience may agree with. Like I’m reminded of how Chuck Schumer has an imaginary retired couple who lives in Long Island or something, and before he does anything, he considers what their opinion might be. Liberals have given themselves imaginary brain creatures who whisper in their ears on what to say and do, because they know if they only acted based on conviction, if they only said words based on their own beliefs, the only words out of their mouths would be “i want to be popular.”
Oh god Chuck Schumer and the Bailey’s. His fictional long island family.
You are so right about liberals believing in there being a “correct” position. Everytime I get woke scolded on Reddit for trying remain consistent with my ideology it’s some liberal angry that my position would alienate a certain percentage of the potential audience or voter pool or whatever. Well or it’s a conservative Nazis who literally just wants to punish everyone they feel deserves it; of course the liberals will defend their right to say that, curious they never defend me though.
She would say something to the effect of that you should put your convictions in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first. She’d at least have a point in saying this, but I think the real problem is that she pretends to be a Realist by assigning “giving up” the eternal title of being More Realistic. She has no analysis of causes and material conditions most of the time, and in the rare cases that she does (when it helps attack the left), she looks at it only on the timescale of one election cycle. She has no concept of what activism is actually for because she can’t imagine doing something other than triangulating with what is popular already.
The practical material truth of every single claim she makes in this post that isn’t about her feelings (which is half the post) is either heavily misleading or overtly false, because it would compromise her doomerism to see how progress has been made by the Palestine activists, or understanding that activism is almost always an uphill battle of popularizing your position rather than always being popular and aligning your actions to flatter whatever you calculate the most people to currently like. Like, imagine applying her current logic to the struggle for trans rights as it was 20 years ago. She would basically tell you to give up because transphobia is overwhelmingly the default position and many proponents of trans rights are viewed as freaks and worse (due to transphobia, etc.). Contra at the time would never say to give up because, however uphill it was (and still is), her life was on the line with many others to oppose the whole neoliberal establishment on this issue. Now, her life is not on the line with the whole establishment, as the Democrat order is perfectly comfortable to her as a rich e-celeb, so rocking the boat is viewed as a threat at least as bad as the fascists. Therefore, people struggling with issues that are not yet popular should roll over and die, and those with popular issues that bring tumult to the Democrats should do the same, and according to her the cause of Palestine is both of these things, depending on which one makes it look worse in the moment.
the liberal has no beliefs. She believes in nothing other than aligning with what she perceives is the socially acceptable left-liberal position. It should have been obvious she no longer had a soul when she was willingly hanging out with Hillary Clinton. Contrapoints is not a person with beliefs other than she deserves an audience. She’s an empty vessel, she’s a husk who wants attention. She wants a personal mythology and adoring fans. Everything she says is run through a filter to calculate the best possible audience retention. This is a person for whom beliefs and internal conviction are not an avenue to change the world, but rather beliefs are a malleable problem to be solved by choosing the correct postures in order to gain some mythical mainstream appeal.
The liberal is someone who believes there is a correct position, not necessarily correct on its own merits or based upon personal experience, but instead it’s correct by virtue of how much of an audience it can get. But it’s not even properly calibrated, it’s based on the perception of what a broad liberal audience may agree with. Like I’m reminded of how Chuck Schumer has an imaginary retired couple who lives in Long Island or something, and before he does anything, he considers what their opinion might be. Liberals have given themselves imaginary brain creatures who whisper in their ears on what to say and do, because they know if they only acted based on conviction, if they only said words based on their own beliefs, the only words out of their mouths would be “i want to be popular.”
Oh god Chuck Schumer and the Bailey’s. His fictional long island family.
You are so right about liberals believing in there being a “correct” position. Everytime I get woke scolded on Reddit for trying remain consistent with my ideology it’s some liberal angry that my position would alienate a certain percentage of the potential audience or voter pool or whatever. Well or it’s a conservative Nazis who literally just wants to punish everyone they feel deserves it; of course the liberals will defend their right to say that, curious they never defend me though.
She would say something to the effect of that you should put your convictions in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first. She’d at least have a point in saying this, but I think the real problem is that she pretends to be a Realist by assigning “giving up” the eternal title of being More Realistic. She has no analysis of causes and material conditions most of the time, and in the rare cases that she does (when it helps attack the left), she looks at it only on the timescale of one election cycle. She has no concept of what activism is actually for because she can’t imagine doing something other than triangulating with what is popular already.
The practical material truth of every single claim she makes in this post that isn’t about her feelings (which is half the post) is either heavily misleading or overtly false, because it would compromise her doomerism to see how progress has been made by the Palestine activists, or understanding that activism is almost always an uphill battle of popularizing your position rather than always being popular and aligning your actions to flatter whatever you calculate the most people to currently like. Like, imagine applying her current logic to the struggle for trans rights as it was 20 years ago. She would basically tell you to give up because transphobia is overwhelmingly the default position and many proponents of trans rights are viewed as freaks and worse (due to transphobia, etc.). Contra at the time would never say to give up because, however uphill it was (and still is), her life was on the line with many others to oppose the whole neoliberal establishment on this issue. Now, her life is not on the line with the whole establishment, as the Democrat order is perfectly comfortable to her as a rich e-celeb, so rocking the boat is viewed as a threat at least as bad as the fascists. Therefore, people struggling with issues that are not yet popular should roll over and die, and those with popular issues that bring tumult to the Democrats should do the same, and according to her the cause of Palestine is both of these things, depending on which one makes it look worse in the moment.