this one really speaks to me
https://zirk.us/@ShaulaEvans/115773818039339000
this is what really sets leftists apart from liberals imo.
liberals like to decorate themselves with the nimbus of morality but when it comes to stepping up to fascism and protesting even if it's not like a fun parade but serious and uncomfortable. Or just if the weather is bad.
Or when it comes to being self critical about your own learned patterns of behavior and thinking.. they are nowhere to be seen, not to be relied on and it does real damage, as we can see.
452
Comments56
I wish reading platitudes could make me feel superior to others
I have the perfect quote for you:
Obviously I am making a bit of a joke on TOs cost here. Should be no problem for TO after making such broad statements.
That’s not IO
What? It's a common saying.
That's what sets leftists apart from liberals.
We’ve got too many people thinking they live in a fucking movie
It's just like that one movie
I feel like you'd have to be on a giant to fuck a giraffe but I have no practical experience
I don't agree with the last bit. What you do is what you are. But the rest is good.
To quote Chidi from the good place:
It is literally saying that your values are what you do even when no one is watching, meaning not picking and choosing/
If you need to clear your nose out, then when other people aren't watching you might well be picking ...
Or wiping my ass, which I don't do in front of other people either. It isn't referring to every literal thing we do.
The context is about whether someone does the right thing when not being watched. As on their virtues aren't just performative.
I was specifically making a wordplay joke about the word "picking" ... never mind.
It doesn't really work in the context as written, but now I see what you are going for. If you had gone with '...choosing to be picking' I probably would have caught it.
Ok but what about people with performative virtues who place themselves in situations where they're expected to perform virtuously? For instance, things like alchoholics anonymous or Mike Johnson's Covenent Eyes app? ( https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/11/01/mike-johnson-son-abstinence-partners/ )
I'm reading it as your values determine what you do, what you do determines who you are
I miss mister Adagonye!
Lot of wanking going on here. Is this a fetish?
It's social media, so of course they're wanking/rubbing. Don't kink-shame. 😄
I'm one of those leftists. Or rather socialists if we are going to get theoretical about it.
I am here to tell you that you are wrong. Socialists and liberals even share values. Where we break is not on indiviual morality. It is on principles of universial equality. But most importantly socialists see structural causes for inequality. And collective action as the only way out of it.
While worldview have a tendency to govern individual action, so does socio-economic situation and background and a lot of lesser factors.
Ideology or even organisation doesn't make individuals act less shitty, hopefully esducation does.
Most people dont have consistent morals that they live to. For most people they just do whats moral most of the time and thats good enough for them. There is a serious lack of self awareness in reading this post and thinking it applies to you.
Tsk tsks, politicking on a meme sub for shame. Anyway leftists on this site are a joke. Half the "leftists" on this site say they want socialism and then go on to describe 1:1 the current liberal society that they live in. The other half are indistinguishable from neo nazi's. Reminder that while Liberals were defeating fascism in WW2 leftists joined them.
You mean the guys selling weapons to Nazis until they realised the communists were winning?
Before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was officially neutral but provided significant support to allies, particularly through the Lend-Lease program, which aided countries like Britain and China. The U.S. also imposed trade restrictions on Japan and increased military preparedness as tensions escalated globally.
Western powers declared war shortly after the invasion of Poland.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
Soviets were fine with the Germans until the Germans turned against them.
Hey uh show of hands:
How many people have actually worked at something like a homeless shelter, non profit assisting some kind of class or classes of disadvantaged individuals?
How many people here actually just give cash to homeless people when they ask for it, which is the most efficient and effective way to help them?
How many of you have actually given a homeless person a place to stay, or maybe just park their car, whatever, with conditions and time limits of course, but to try and actually give them some kind of stability, at least for a bit?
How many people have organized or joined a local union, tenants union, worked for a tenants rights organization, mutual aid group, etc?
How many of you even help out your neighbors with things from time to time, or even talk to them?
Help drive them to some doctor appointment or grocery trip, do a carpool?
Howabout supporting or organizing some kind of local co-op, that actually gives voting rights as to business decisions, to members, in some capacity?
Those, those are the kinds of things that you would be doing if you actually acted out the virtues of being a leftist.
I've unironically met slum lords who've done more praxis by at least offering people somewhere to live, little to no questions asked, for an affordable price, than most self-described leftists I encounter.
Please, please don't ever mistake some kind of pristinely articulated, immaculate worldview, for actually doing anything useful in terms of being the change you want to see in the world.
This is wild to me, bc I've never met a leftist who doesn't do several of the things you listed. Where are you encountering these self-described leftists? How do you know that they aren't doing praxis?
Mostly Seattle.
How do I know?
They were my friends, and their friends of my friends, untill they started giving me shit for... actually doing something like half the things I listed out above.
They were more interested in their IG profiles and Twitter reputations, whole lot of rainbow flavored idpol.
I was being 'unrealistic' and 'ridiculous' by actually doing things. I'd ask what they were doing, and well that question was rude, actually.
See, anybody can call themselves a leftist, make all the mouth noises, use it as a way to be smug and superior, and just... not actually be one.
I'm not saying 'all leftists are fake untill they personally prove otherwise to me.'
That indeed would be a rather silly standard.
Thats why I asked ... questions, and didn't make much of a statement beyond the actual point of this original post; your values are exemplified bynwhat you do, talk is cheap.
Maybe I've just had a bad run of fake friends comapred to most?
My personal experience isn't exactly a statistically valid unbiased survey, but it is my experience.
Anecdotally but you're not wrong. Everyone talks a talk not many do. That's irrespective of political beliefs.
Yep, completely correct.
Another way you could phrase the same idea is:
There does not exist a philosophy or worldview that one can simply profess to adhere to, which makes one de facto immune to being a hypocrite.
Or maybe, more succinctly:
You are not immune to performative virtue signalling.
As someone who has reached various stages of self-congruence in their life (most recently this month) more people would benefit from understanding that deep down we are all hypocrits in some way or another. That does not make us bad people, but ignoring it prevents us from growing.
Thats a very good way of looking at it.
'You' are not a model kit, that is just, fully assembled at some point, with the right modules, no room left for improvement.
'You' are a process, a river that flows, a path that is walked.
Honestly, Seattle really is full of holier-than-thou assholes who want to think they're farther left than they are.
I've run into a wide variety, starting at the "I'm a leftist, but ecofascism is kinda cool" kind, to "I know you're homeless, but you're white, so that makes you more privileged than me, a POC landlord", and running all the way up to "Eugenics is okay, but I have a karl marx shirt and think I'm one of the vanguard" types.
It absolutely turned into crabs in a bucket when I got a job in palliative care for developmentally disabled elders, and it's part of why I burnt out so bad and tried to kill myself.
Sorry to hear you tried to kill yourself, glad to see you failed.
Yeah, I used to be the co lead of the data and IT department at Mary's Place.
Then a series of ludicrous events caused by my own family made me homeless.
Absolutely no one cared, either that I made my living by trying to help the poor, at scale, or that I joined their ranks, not any of my friends, my extended family, nor my own former employer.
Not exactly a suicide attempt, but goddamn if a year or two with all the fentanyl addicts didn't nearly kill me, I'm still recovering from all the physical injuries that caused me, 2 years on from it.
Fuck Seattle, its exactly as you say, everyone is unimaginably absurd in their own personal victim / moral superiority mindsets, and they're also delusional when it comes to thinking that some policy they support is going to do anything like what they think it will.
Leftism is just a trend in Seattle these days, almost everyone is actually just a corpo or a nepo baby of some kind, cosplaying a leftist with all the pretentious meta/double irony of wearing a designer Che Guevera t-shirt, which is actually cool and proletarian, but I guess you just wouldn't get it.
I swear, if I run into one more hipster that tries to mansplain feminism to me...
"What I do when no one's watching, when it's hard?" 👀
Sometimes caring about your own comes first. I know, shocking, right? Imagine the drama this would have caused, Trump would invoke military threats to free Netanyahu. It's just not worth the conflict and you know he will walk away anyway.
NATO is an alliance against external threats. We're talking about internal conflicts. Did you miss the part where Trump threatened Canada and Denmark, both being NATO members?
That's literally false, go and read article 5. It explicitly says external threats, not internal. In this case, Article 1 applies, which is actually about internal conflicts., but it simply says that any conflicts should be resolved peacefully, not that other members have any obligation to get involved.
Because other articles already clarified that. If one law says "drinking is illegal", another law does not need to say "drinking while being with friends is illegal"
It normally goes 1..2..3.., so if 1 already says something, 5 does not need to repeat something about being exclusively external.
Like claiming to be against ICE but then not even being slightly inconveniensed to not support companies that support them.
I mean, are they? When I think of centrists I see people who are constantly saying “I want to do this great thing and all but…” right before spouting some feels-based economic bullshit for why we shouldn’t take care of others.
I live in Canada where we have a left, a center, and a right. The left party was thrown in the bin by voters so that they could “strategically” vote for the centrists in order to avoid the far-right. Now we have a party that is pouring money into private business and gutting our environment for some short-term gains but because they don’t overtly hate gay people somehow that’s ok. They lied to us about getting a better voting specifically because they are the only party that benefits from FPTP here and then we just let them get away with it.
Centrists are worse than conservatives, in my opinion and in the context of the longterm, because the only thing they ever genuinely succeed at on their own is massively delaying progress and causing further shifts toward to the right. They’re worthless idiots at best and modt of the time are straight-up malicious liars who want the image of a progressive without doing anything truly positive.
Fuck “centrists”; they’re just conservatives who are too chicken-shit to say it outloud.
Well there is a certain point where most people's morals are going to fail. What sets people apart is where that point is.
While I agree with the rest, "your values are who you are" sounds very reductive. We are not one single aspect, not just our values, or thoughts, or emotions, or actions, but the dynamic system of them all.
not everyone can afford to have their actions match their values aye
Your values are who you are when you get to think about what you want to be. They are what you’re proud of, and they are what allow you to look upon your actions positively. Your values and principles are the foundation everything else is built on.
People will certainly judge your actions, and that’s fair for them to do much of the time, but if your actions and your values are so disconnected that the difference comes into play so strongly then you might need to read the post over a few more times.
I would say our life experiences are the foundation that our values are then developed on. People in different circumstances will likely end up with different values (or even if broadly the same values, they will prioritise them differently).
I wasn't commenting because of my personal experiences, but because I've read about life stories of others where they had to act in ways that went contrary to their values. Like when they are stuck in an abusive family or relationship dynamic, or in a job where they have to act unethically to be able to afford housing and food. During the pandemic I've come across the concept of moral injury which seems to refer to similar situations.
I always return the shopping cart to the proper place.
In Anthropology, it's called the Observer Effect. It's a simple premise that people act differently when they know they're being watched.
' Progressive except Palestine"
Classic liberals.
I feel always watched so it stays the same.
My value is -6942067
And you can always find the best value at Toyotathon! Toyotathon is on!
Cool strawman. Liberalism was the original leftism (see the French revolutionary National Assembly), and modern liberalism is leftist.
The many varieties of liberalism share a core liberal philosophy of morally absolute concepts:
To reject general liberalism, you'd have to reject that morally all individuals are categorically equal with the same universal individual rights & liberties, or that they should have political & legal equality, or that authority ought to protect those universal individual liberties & that people ought to be able to change & replace their government. It's difficult to imagine any sensible person disagreeing with these humble ideas. If you do, then please call out your specific objection.
So, what does it mean you set "leftists apart from liberals"? You're claiming leftists are illiberal. An illiberal leftist by definition must reject general liberalism: they think people are fundamentally unequal, or they aren't entitled to political & legal equality, or authority ought to be able to abuse universal individual liberties, or people shouldn't be able to change & replace their government. This is flat out immoral & contradictory: instead of eliminating social hierarchies, it asserts a hierarchy of uncontrolled government power/authority to abuse individual liberties ought to be permitted. Such uncontrolled authority is necessary for left-wing authoritarianism.
So, no, by claiming authority should have limits to prohibit the abuse of universal rights & liberties that individuals inherently have, liberalism sets a firm moral boundary that illiberals willingly violate. Only adherents to a deluded philosophy would convince themselves that authorizing government abuses is somehow morally superior. Leftists don't claim morality by rejecting it, only by building on it, and that means accepting general liberalism: leftists can & should be liberal.
Having values to stand for despite inconvenience requires at least knowing them. If they're not consistent & coherent, then you haven't figured them out. By rejecting the entire philosophy of liberalism & the humanism & Enlightenment ideals that underpin it yet still claiming morality, I doubt you've figured anything out.
::: spoiler Combat Liberalism We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.
But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.
Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.
To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.
Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.
To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.
To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.
To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.
To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.
To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.
To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.
We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.
They are all manifestations of liberalism.
Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.
People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.
Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.
We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.
All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front. :::
Admittedly I am not there yet. I trying to balance being principled and not being insufferable to most people
That, and the how many of your political opponents you murder and imprison once you've consolidated power. Potato potahto, really.