I fucking told you hoes that we have to talk to Chuds and I got eaten alive with a dull knife in the comments. Adam Curtis on latest chapo closes with an ill description of why we must, if our intent to change the world is genuine.
Yes, yes, vindication is a self-oriented fantasy that obscures the truth, I fucking know. But still, happy to shove in your collective face… also please think about it
I don’t listen to Chapo and don’t care what they or their guests say.
I would rather talk to the 50% of people that don’t vote at all, the majority of whom are working class.
There’s no blueprint for radicalizing, some chuds might be able to be reached, many can’t. Don’t act like they’re some key demographic that’s going to spark the revolution.
The last time I talked to a chud they called me a “jew-loving pedo” and said the US should have dropped nukes on Iraq and Syria
Chuds exist in many tiers. Obviously someone who is proudly “j-woke” is going to be a pretty hard sell. Not to mention, some people are just assholes!
The thing is, America is a chud country. Because reactionary ideals are instilled into the people here from preschool through college, many people who are otherwise decent will become chuds anyway. It’s these otherwise decent people that are potentially reachable.
I can talk to a Hank Hill or a Dale Gribble, but I’m not talking to an Alex Jones or a Rush Limbaugh
Well you don’t have to worry about talking to the last guy anymore.
The real question is if you’d talk to Bill Dautrieve
Totally agree. Interesting point. Couldn’t culture serve to demand and implement improved material conditions? I’m not on some wack “coalition building” kick, or even educating fallen bozos. Just hoping to box-out the power structure by undoing the intentional cultural fracturing.
Let’s say your car is dented and needs paint, you can afford only one of these separate repairs at the moment, which is first?
But it also needs an oil change… kidding, kidding. the metaphor sucks but I’m interested in how social influence and outcome is structured re cause/effect. I liked someone’s comment here about “upstream/downstream” relationships. It’s a correlation and/or causation type problem.
To this specific point about the left embrace of the LGBT community: this is a perfect example for the conundrum of whether to start with near and achievable goals, or to start with the hardest project first? That was the car bit, but it only addresses the Order Of Operations and misses the more interesting point of which is more directly beneficial?
Which better improves the lives of the LGBT community: a slower gain with fewer chuds, or widespread success with those who are much closer to justice?
Which is greater, 1/1000 of a mile, or 160% of a meter? No unpaid labor, they’re the same.
That’s still an imperfect unpacking, I’m not sure they are the same. The cloudy part is which approach is more effective at starting any run-away cascade effects? Which is more energy efficient? Which is more effective?
I don’t think it’s knowable.
Curtis doesn’t speak to any of this though, doesn’t hold the chud up as some key demo either, his point, I think, is just talk to everyone, chuds included
I listened to the episode, and Adam Curtis has a lot more shit takes than good ones. His central talking point is that leftism has no clear vision for the future, and only represents dissatisfaction with the present. What we actually lack is a clear vision for how to destroy the existing power structures that are making our extremely clear and well-articulated visions for the future impossible to implement. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I stopped listening about 10 minutes in whm he kept referring to the democrats as “the left.”
Oh shit is that what he was doing? I failed to realize throughout the entire hour. In that case, his critique turns from just wrong, to woefully naive.
More specifically he kept referring to the the centrist neoliberals in the democratic part to be part of a broad political spectrum that includes socialists. He basically subscribes to the view that if you go far enough left incrementally you can create a spectrum from liberalism to socialism.
