It absolutely is. This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however. All it has guaranteed in this instance is that a bunch of hapless Uber drivers are going to be feeling the backlash. Friends don't let friends scab.
> This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however... Friends don't let friends scab.
"If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!"
This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advocating, you are evil and (propping up the man | part of the patriarchy | oppressing <group> | a literal nazi | etc.). Entirely predictably, this is likely to alienate anyone even slightly to the right of the speaker and push them further right.
Maybe most Uber drivers don't really want to protest in this way. Maybe they agree with Trump. (Probably not, given that it's Manhattan, but who knows.) Maybe they feel like they don't have all the facts and don't want to make a stand based on an incomplete understanding. Either way, attacking them for it is counterproductive for you.
> This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump.
I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate that someone else is in charge so my beliefs are invalid. I am pushed to the left by conservative intolerance just as much as the reverse is true.
Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out. You are following your own proclivities of reasoning, fixating on which messaging you're most enticed by or most repulsed by.
> Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out.
You seem to be saying not "that kind of leftish rhetoric didn't push people towards Trump", but "there's also rightish rhetoric which pushed people away from Trump".
Which seems true to me, and totally worth bringing up. But the bit you quoted also seems true to me, and your post doesn't parse as disagreement with it.
A common rightist tactic was also to claim that that the president of the United States was an ineligible non-Christian non-citizen, despite all evidence to the contrary. This was done by elected leaders and representatives of a major political party, not just random people on Twitter. That kind of callous disregard for fact removes the possibility of civil debate and drives people away in a similar fashion as screaming "Hitler" constantly.
It's an intellectually honest way to point out inconsistency. The hypocrisy is asymmetric from my pov. I know people who were horrified Obama got elected and some indulged in variations of the 'he's Hitler' BS, but the current reaction by the extreme neo-left is a magnitude of order worse. There's plenty (a majority I bet) of Dems that are not making that mistake, but the echo chamber prevents them from speaking unless they are willing to piss off their peers.
Like the echo chambers that were (and still are being) ruthlessly exploited by Bannon-backed Cambridge Analytica and Macedonian-registered ad-laden fake news sites?
There is an intense echo chamber on the far right that you've failed to mention, with similar barriers to entry. They've gone as far as to create a walled-off invite-only social network called gab.ai. They brigade similarly on Twitter, and aggressively block opinions that do not align with theirs. They peddle information that cannot possibly be true, and resort to personal attacks when facts are pointed out to them. I had someone tell me that 50 million people died from heroin overdoses under Obama. That is absurd – it's a full sixth of the US population. But they insisted. "Do your own research" comes hard and fast when contrary evidence is presented.
These views are mindlessly repeated and reshared by the thousands. Anything that signals group membership is adored regardless of evidence to the contrary; anything that conflicts with the group opinion is rejected outright. I've watched these people change the definition of per-capita to fit their narrative, then insist it's always meant that. There is no shortage of echo chamber problems on the right. Look at Breitbart News.
There is a bipartisan communication problem in America. Algorithmic newsfeeds have fractured the audience into distinct groups that no longer communicate with one another. Americans seem unable or unwilling to perform basic searches to fact-check news sources. Pinning it on a political party or subset of the political spectrum IMO reflects a fundamentally incomplete view of the problem.
I didn't imply echo chambers were limited to my description of the "alt-left".
"These views" Can you list another? I started that list with the calling the opponent Hitler example.
I would appreciate a cite on "change the definition of per-capita", not because I don't think some "expert" made that assertion... it looks very similar to the similarly meaningless def of "unemployed" some use.
Exactly the reason I don't have a more accepting attitude when it comes to left wing positions I might actually agree with. My political disagreements are what they are but the idea of providing any validation to what amounts to Bolshevik-style tactics keeps me on the sidelines.
As an example: I am a free market libertarian who agrees with marriage equality, but the means by which 'activists' attempt to engage issues turns me off. For example, harassing Mike Pence at his house -- I found that tactic childish and off-putting and immature (and divisive) as well as ineffective. Those tactics don't create positive change, they promote Balkanization of people who might otherwise be convinced to agree with a reasonable position.
France's violent anti-Uber protests -- regardless of issue, I'm less likely to listen to potentially reasonable positions when they are presented in violent or disruptive ways. In fact, those sort of things make me less likely to consider their views.
When a child screams for chocolate -- that's less compelling than if they ask in a reasoned, mature way, presenting facts and arguments rather than throwing things and parading around the house in perpetual outrage.
You're penalizing an abstract political opinion based upon the actions of individuals that bear no special ambassadorship or ownership of that view. This is a step down the road to collective punishment. One could easily use this logic to invalidate opinions from the right – because a group sympathetic to those views invaded a federal wildlife refuge with firearms, or because a group sympathetic to the views protested a funeral.
There will always be children in the world. Get an invite to gab.ai if you want to see the giant cache of them on the right, literally advocating violence and genocide outright. Unreasonableness is not the partisan issue you make it out to be.
You know, you can participate in these protests and help steer their direction. It's not like planning committees get together and grep HN comments; you gotta show up.
If you're "turned off" by how activism is going, Free Market Libertarian, you should put your money where your mouth is and present a more workable alternative.
A narrow point: Trump is not Obama. It is possible that the differing reactions to their policies, administrations, and signalling are based in the actual differences between their policies, admininistrations, and signalling, not just from differences in the amount of hypocrisy their opponents engage in.
Maybe I should have inserted more qualifiers, but I deliberately didn't say that. The friends I refer to didn't make the "he's Hitler" arg at or before election time. They lost, they knew it, and they thought about why they lost instead of doubling down on the mistake of picking the Obama global government equivalent on the right. Later on some made those implications by inflating relatively minor actions that fit a pattern they were looking for. I was happy he beat Obomney. Better to let the pendulum swing.
If they're individuals and you've done the research to support your claim of their individual non-criticism? Sure. If you're seeking to demonize a large group based upon the behavior of individuals with no material connection to others in the group you're criticizing – then it's not at all.
Or they're following a newsfeed algorithm that's determining their information-seeking proclivities for them. I honestly find that much more subtly disturbing and manipulatable than willful ignorance – people have ceded control over their information seeking behavior entirely.
It's a common tactic on the right too. It's a common tactic on social media, period. If you haven't observed similar behavior from the self-described right, get an account on gab.ai or join a few pro-Trump groups on Facebook like "Donald Trump American President". The problem is not unique to those on the left. Search for "MAGA" on Twitter if you want to dive in to the neverending shitshow head-first.
This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance.
How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
Moreover, because this strike was inherently political, should taxi drivers who actually support the immigration EO (or at least don't feel compelled to protest) be forced to partake in the strike? That sounds like an utterly indefensible position to me.
It wasn't a strike for higher wages, it was a strike to stop being banned from the country.
Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this.
They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.
"If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!"
This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advocating, you are evil and (propping up the man | part of the patriarchy | oppressing <group> | a literal nazi | etc.). Entirely predictably, this is likely to alienate anyone even slightly to the right of the speaker and push them further right.
Maybe most Uber drivers don't really want to protest in this way. Maybe they agree with Trump. (Probably not, given that it's Manhattan, but who knows.) Maybe they feel like they don't have all the facts and don't want to make a stand based on an incomplete understanding. Either way, attacking them for it is counterproductive for you.