I mean, what evidence, whatsoever, is there for your “grifters” accusation? Many of these people are, to one degree or another, repulsed by what they see as the Democratic Party’s embrace of a neoconservative-type foreign policy and insufficient regard for civil liberties and free speech. Are some of them contrarians? Maybe, who knows. So what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this have to do with grifting?

Grifting in this respect involves audience capture. A lot of online commentators like to follow the money and parrot talking points that get them more views.

Thank you. So then is the assumption that none of these views are genuinely held? Would these essays and articles need to have no pecuniary benefit in order for them to be deemed more legitimate?

How do you distinguish between audience capture for pecuniary benefit and audience capture because you genuinely hold these beliefs and feel they should be spread as far and wide as possible?

I guess the meta question is how do you distinguish between a grifter and a genuine advocate in a way that is principled?

I see people being labeled grifters on the right, left and in between. It's almost become a proxy for any public figure that is not part of MSM.

This is exactly what concerns me. Let's take Ryan Grim (The Intercept) and David Sirota (The Lever). I genuinely like their journalism, and they come from a left-wing, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-regulation perspective, but very often their narratives hold Democrats' feet to the fire and, given the nature of the topics, often more attention is paid to Democratic shortcomings than Republican shortcomings, though I see it as Republicans never even factoring into the issue in the first place. But I've seem mainstream liberals say that these guys are grifting, trying to fundraise off the disaster in East Palestine, criticizing Biden and Buttigieg in a way that plays into Tucker Carlson's hands. But does this mean that anyone that doesn't just give praise to the Democrats and say everything they do is perfect is actually secretly right-wing?

Hardly.

But there comes a time when someone’s advocacy for what they perceive as a purer leftism (shorthand because the ones I know would call it a variety of things) is pretty obviously acting as a spoiler. 2000. 2004. 2016. Like we don’t need to see this playing out (again) to the detriment of society (again) in pursuit of burning it all down. JFC the communists and super far lefties I know it’s like if you hate the Democrats, and I hear what they’re saying and can see it, get involved with them and bring them further left. When the far right fringe was off being crazy, they got very little accomplished. When they became the Republican Party establishment, they achieved many of their aims.

But some people are really just irritating and contrarian people and if they’re not uselessly fighting some unwinable fight in a this one remote and esoteric corner of society, they feel like they’re not making progress. But they’re not making progress.

But how is it grifting? Don't you see how this same thinking can be cynically deployed to stifle criticism from the left from mainstream democrats? I notice you key on presidential years, but, here, they are talking about what happened in Ohio, in a non presidential year, yet this same language is being deployed. Given the perpetually cataclysmic undertones that mark current politics, the mainstream can argue that is it always better to keep those arguments quiet "for the good of society". The result is decades of hollowed out middle class, growing income inequality, expensive and decreased quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this have to do with grifting?

Grifting in this respect involves audience capture. A lot of online commentators like to follow the money and parrot talking points that get them more views.

Thank you. So then is the assumption that none of these views are genuinely held? Would these essays and articles need to have no pecuniary benefit in order for them to be deemed more legitimate?

How do you distinguish between audience capture for pecuniary benefit and audience capture because you genuinely hold these beliefs and feel they should be spread as far and wide as possible?

I guess the meta question is how do you distinguish between a grifter and a genuine advocate in a way that is principled?

I see people being labeled grifters on the right, left and in between. It's almost become a proxy for any public figure that is not part of MSM.

This is exactly what concerns me. Let's take Ryan Grim (The Intercept) and David Sirota (The Lever). I genuinely like their journalism, and they come from a left-wing, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-regulation perspective, but very often their narratives hold Democrats' feet to the fire and, given the nature of the topics, often more attention is paid to Democratic shortcomings than Republican shortcomings, though I see it as Republicans never even factoring into the issue in the first place. But I've seem mainstream liberals say that these guys are grifting, trying to fundraise off the disaster in East Palestine, criticizing Biden and Buttigieg in a way that plays into Tucker Carlson's hands. But does this mean that anyone that doesn't just give praise to the Democrats and say everything they do is perfect is actually secretly right-wing?

Hardly.

But there comes a time when someone’s advocacy for what they perceive as a purer leftism (shorthand because the ones I know would call it a variety of things) is pretty obviously acting as a spoiler. 2000. 2004. 2016. Like we don’t need to see this playing out (again) to the detriment of society (again) in pursuit of burning it all down. JFC the communists and super far lefties I know it’s like if you hate the Democrats, and I hear what they’re saying and can see it, get involved with them and bring them further left. When the far right fringe was off being crazy, they got very little accomplished. When they became the Republican Party establishment, they achieved many of their aims.

But some people are really just irritating and contrarian people and if they’re not uselessly fighting some unwinable fight in a this one remote and esoteric corner of society, they feel like they’re not making progress. But they’re not making progress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this have to do with grifting?

Grifting in this respect involves audience capture. A lot of online commentators like to follow the money and parrot talking points that get them more views.

Thank you. So then is the assumption that none of these views are genuinely held? Would these essays and articles need to have no pecuniary benefit in order for them to be deemed more legitimate?

How do you distinguish between audience capture for pecuniary benefit and audience capture because you genuinely hold these beliefs and feel they should be spread as far and wide as possible?

I guess the meta question is how do you distinguish between a grifter and a genuine advocate in a way that is principled?

I see people being labeled grifters on the right, left and in between. It's almost become a proxy for any public figure that is not part of MSM.

This is exactly what concerns me. Let's take Ryan Grim (The Intercept) and David Sirota (The Lever). I genuinely like their journalism, and they come from a left-wing, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-regulation perspective, but very often their narratives hold Democrats' feet to the fire and, given the nature of the topics, often more attention is paid to Democratic shortcomings than Republican shortcomings, though I see it as Republicans never even factoring into the issue in the first place. But I've seem mainstream liberals say that these guys are grifting, trying to fundraise off the disaster in East Palestine, criticizing Biden and Buttigieg in a way that plays into Tucker Carlson's hands. But does this mean that anyone that doesn't just give praise to the Democrats and say everything they do is perfect is actually secretly right-wing?

I think Red Scare podcast took this route.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this have to do with grifting?

Grifting in this respect involves audience capture. A lot of online commentators like to follow the money and parrot talking points that get them more views.

Thank you. So then is the assumption that none of these views are genuinely held? Would these essays and articles need to have no pecuniary benefit in order for them to be deemed more legitimate?

How do you distinguish between audience capture for pecuniary benefit and audience capture because you genuinely hold these beliefs and feel they should be spread as far and wide as possible?

I guess the meta question is how do you distinguish between a grifter and a genuine advocate in a way that is principled?

I see people being labeled grifters on the right, left and in between. It's almost become a proxy for any public figure that is not part of MSM.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:While I think you have identified a real phenomenon on the left, I am not sure it is fair to describe that group as "Bernie Sanders supporters". Certainly some are, but the group goes beyond that. What I've seen is that some folks get so used to being against everything that they don't know any other mindset. Then, the backlash to their positions only reinforces their opposition and pushes them into even crazier stances. The most well-known example is Glenn Greenwald.

Yes, they weren’t pro-Bernie as much as they were anti-Hillary, anti-Wall Street, and anti anything they perceived as representing “the Establishment”. Populism on the left is as paranoid and cultish as populism on the right.

No it is not the same as shown by Jan 6th. On the right it is the mainstream value of the party not a small minority.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:While I think you have identified a real phenomenon on the left, I am not sure it is fair to describe that group as "Bernie Sanders supporters". Certainly some are, but the group goes beyond that. What I've seen is that some folks get so used to being against everything that they don't know any other mindset. Then, the backlash to their positions only reinforces their opposition and pushes them into even crazier stances. The most well-known example is Glenn Greenwald.

Yes, they weren’t pro-Bernie as much as they were anti-Hillary, anti-Wall Street, and anti anything they perceived as representing “the Establishment”. Populism on the left is as paranoid and cultish as populism on the right.

THIS. Same as the Occupy Wall Street guys.

jsteele wrote:While I think you have identified a real phenomenon on the left, I am not sure it is fair to describe that group as "Bernie Sanders supporters". Certainly some are, but the group goes beyond that. What I've seen is that some folks get so used to being against everything that they don't know any other mindset. Then, the backlash to their positions only reinforces their opposition and pushes them into even crazier stances. The most well-known example is Glenn Greenwald.

Yes, they weren’t pro-Bernie as much as they were anti-Hillary, anti-Wall Street, and anti anything they perceived as representing “the Establishment”. Populism on the left is as paranoid and cultish as populism on the right.

I've known Glenn Greenwald since his early 00's, Daily Kos days. He's always been about making money, while pretending to be this great civil libertarian. Once he got on the Russian payroll, he couldn't turn back.

It's no coincidence that the so-called lefties who also fit in this category all have ties to Russia - ie, Tulsi, Taibbi

Anonymous wrote:What does this have to do with grifting?

Grifting in this respect involves audience capture. A lot of online commentators like to follow the money and parrot talking points that get them more views.

jsteele wrote:While I think you have identified a real phenomenon on the left, I am not sure it is fair to describe that group as "Bernie Sanders supporters". Certainly some are, but the group goes beyond that. What I've seen is that some folks get so used to being against everything that they don't know any other mindset. Then, the backlash to their positions only reinforces their opposition and pushes them into even crazier stances. The most well-known example is Glenn Greenwald.

Yeah I guess I started out thinking of one thing and then it turned into another category. I guess the commonality is that I would follow a lot of these people because they also, like me, generally supported Bernie. And yes Glenn Greenwald and to some extent Matt Taibbi are good examples.

There's contrarian and then there's all out grifting. I think Tulsi also fits this example.

What does this have to do with grifting?

While I think you have identified a real phenomenon on the left, I am not sure it is fair to describe that group as "Bernie Sanders supporters". Certainly some are, but the group goes beyond that. What I've seen is that some folks get so used to being against everything that they don't know any other mindset. Then, the backlash to their positions only reinforces their opposition and pushes them into even crazier stances. The most well-known example is Glenn Greenwald.

FYI I myself have left-leaning politics and supported Bernie Sanders in his runs for president. I’m not thrilled with the Democratic Party but there are good people and not-so-great people, and I vote for the best candidate with a chance at winning. I believe that one can criticize one’s own party or candidates to hold them accountable but also get out there and drive the vote, at least for harm-reduction purposes. I’m not a sore loser.

That being said, it alarms me that several prominent former Bernie supporters, particularly from the “online left,” have veered into a crypto-reactionary pipeline that actually has become more right wing than left wing. Some you may say have always been grifters, or maybe you would argue something about horseshoe theory and whatnot. I’m referring to people like Briahna Joy Grey, Jimmy Dore, at times Krystal Ball, some would even say David Sirota and Ryan Grim fall into this category, although I like their journalism.

I guess my point is that it seems to be an extremely fine line between holding the Democratic Party accountable - not just being all “rah! rah! Go Team Blue! They can do no wrong!” and over-criticizing them in a way that helps Republicans. The best example is coverage of the Ohio train derailment. It seems like whenever a left wing journalist calls out Biden/Buttigieg and says “do better,” mainstreamers accuse them of helping Republicans with their narrative.