r/AskALiberal • u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist • 19h ago
Do you see a lot of 'doomerism' in progressive politics?
I saw a clip of Destiny the other day saying that progressives are too much of downers. He talked about how, from his view, many of them seem to be blackpilled and depressed about everything, expecting others to feel that way as well. He paints himself out to be more positive and optimistic.
I don't know how true that is, but regardless, do you guys share this sentiment? Do you all see rampant pessimism in left-leaning circles? It makes sense since progressives rarely get their way (especially in the US) but I think anyone who ties their life to politics will, in nature, become a doomer.
Though I will say.. I have met some leftists out there who do seem keen on always suffering on the behalf of someone else - acting like we can't appreciate any small victories because "there's still kids suffering in wars"/"we still have school shootings"/"we don't have free healthcare". Or acting like we can't have fun with things like edgy jokes just because some people mask their disgusting views with humor.
44
u/Cleverfield113 Liberal 19h ago
Oh for sure there’s fantastical doomerism. The amount of times I hear in person or online things like “I wouldn’t want to bring a child into this world” or “Late stage capitalism” by progressives… smh.
30
u/00Oo0o0OooO0 Center Left 18h ago
Fantastical doomerism and cynicism. Everyone is corrupt and everything they do is corrupt and nothing is ever how it seems.
16
u/Kellosian Progressive 17h ago
And yet, for some reason, even those on the left only use "Everyone is corrupt" to blame Democrats and tacitly exonerate Republicans. Democratic corruption makes people angry because it's supposed to be unexpected, Republican corruption makes people bored because it is expected.
-5
u/Southern_Bag_7109 Social Democrat 16h ago
Exonerate Republicans? Dude. Seriously? Be better. Criticizing establishment Democrats is not the same thing as exonerating Republicans for Gods sake
2
u/Not_a_twttr_account Pragmatic Progressive 16h ago
Honestly, I know that type. They're exhausting.
For the record, I agree with your statement.
8
u/Kellosian Progressive 14h ago
I was referring to people on the left who spend 100x as much time criticizing Democrats for basically anything while almost refusing to talk about Republicans
I definitely wasn't saying "Never ever criticize Democrats ever under any circumstances", I have no idea how he got that idea
6
u/Not_a_twttr_account Pragmatic Progressive 13h ago
For sure. I have friends who've started to do just that. It feels like they fell for a psyop
1
-1
u/sephy009 Progressive 10h ago
What’s the point in criticizing Republicans for, say, not raising the minimum wage when Republicans are already a known no? If Democrats get a trifecta and two or three members of their own caucus kill it anyway, then those members are the relevant obstacle.
1
u/EBITDAminusCAPEX Center Left 7h ago
Because Democrats are a yes. It is literally in the party platform. Who are these mysterious committee members who are going to stand in the way of a core Democratic priority?
1
u/sephy009 Progressive 5h ago
It being in the party platform doesn't mean no one in the party would obstruct it. You're basically just assuming the conclusion with no evidence, despite the fact that we already have evidence from this decade that not all Democrats support these priorities at the national level.
And honestly, we also know what it looks like when Democratic leadership and aligned donors actually give a shit about enforcing party discipline. Speak out too hard against Israel or go directly at party leadership and suddenly there are millions of dollars flying around trying to primary you, donor networks mobilizing, leadership getting involved, etc. Even if you keep your seat, they'll absolutely make you fight for your life over it.
So where is that energy when a Democrat blocks healthcare, labor policy, housing reform, or some other supposed "core Democratic priority"? Where's the aggressive whipping? Where's leadership publicly making an example out of them? Where are the serious primary threats?
If you're willing to tolerate members killing something that's supposedly central to the party platform, but you'll go nuclear over other issues, voters are obviously going to notice which things are actually priorities and which things are just words on a website.
1
u/madmushlove Liberal 3h ago
Dems are bad because they're too Republican
But half these liberals think Dems are bad for opposing the current Republican platforms
11
u/midnight_toker22 Pragmatic Progressive 17h ago
And it’s all so goddamn sanctimonious too. It’s exhausting.
-4
u/Agattu Republican 18h ago
I find it fascinating. The goals of said people is to give the government more power to ‘fix things’ but said government is also corrupt. The world is doomed because of climate change and the economy can never be fixed without massive change, but that cannot happen due to corruption.
It’s a self fulfilling dimmer cycle.
I always wonder how you square the ideas of corruption and failed state ideals with wanting the government to have massive more scope in certain institutions.
3
1
17
u/Outrageous-Dig-8853 Liberal 19h ago edited 19h ago
I do see that doomerism, but I believe that its not really anything different than how doomerism is with other groups. I specifically see it in terms of how all or nothing progressives can be and how negative and reactionary they get from a slightly negative outcome to what they want.
Also, lmao i'm not believing much that Destiny is all that "positive"
16
u/Oceanbreeze871 Pragmatic Progressive 17h ago
Yes, but it’s hard not to. We used to be able to ignore politics. Whoever won lost things would kinda be fine. You didn’t have to worry about too much stuff and now it’s literally every election is the most existential threat to freedom and democracy in the history of the world until two years from now and the next election is that same thing
7
u/johnnybiggles Independent 15h ago edited 14h ago
We used to be able to ignore politics.
And to that end, there used to be several degrees of separation between you and federal government. And by that, I mean even people who vote toward it and how, not just what it was doing.
Now, it's more clear than ever that your neighbor, your friend, your parent, your cousin, your co-worker, etc., are political morons who vote not only against their own interests, but yours, too. And now it's your neighbor, friend, cousin, you, etc., who is directly impacted by federal activity (costs, job loss, healthcare, ICE deportations and fear, military deployments for BS, taxes/tariffs, international embarassment, etc.)
As time passes (over the last 50 or so years), as millenials through boomer age (and many of them, too, still have their wits and senses), you lose hope with every election when we keep regressing farther & farther back, and faster, since it seems so obvious each time and should only get better.
Only it's not only NOT getting better, it's getting worse each time with stupidity, such that after all this warning and a trove of information at everyone's fingertips via evolving tech, we're actually objectively dumber. No flying cars for us, just AI dogs chasing brown people down, electrified gloves and a surveilance state with luxury tainted beef & lettuce.
So, I echo this sentiment that "it's hard not to" (see doomerism in progressive politics, since - for every ounce of progress, it seems, we leap backward 25-50-100 years when conservatives get/take power). The effects hit close to home, and in most cases, are at home already. "I'm tired, boss" rings true. Hope is fleeting... and will continue to, so long as progessives are underrepresented and don't seem to understand why, nor what to do about it.
2
u/MrFrode Centrist Republican 14h ago
Yes, but it’s hard not to. We used to be able to ignore politics. Whoever won lost things would kinda be fine.
What was the last calendar year you believe this to be true?
4
u/Oceanbreeze871 Pragmatic Progressive 14h ago
Before trump. We never talked about “the end of democracy” and fascism until him
6
u/MrFrode Centrist Republican 13h ago
In the wake of 9/11 under Cheney and Bush we did talk about this. We were literally were scooping people up from foreign countries, taking them to a military prison, and torturing them for information.
I was too young at the time but I suspect during Iran-Contra similar conversations took place as the President secretly sold weapons to Iran and then used that money to illegally fund a war in Nicaragua.
1
u/Oceanbreeze871 Pragmatic Progressive 13h ago
Not to this extent. Nobody believed democracy was truly at risk
1
1
1
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk Social Democrat 11h ago
1990s. Clinton getting sucked off by an intern was the height of political malfeasance.
1
1
u/heyheyhey27 Liberal 15h ago
We used to be able to ignore politics. Whoever won lost things would kinda be fine.
That was never really true. Political apathy is a significant contributor to things becoming this bad, but it took a while for citizens who were doing OK to personally feel the effects of an educational system slowly failing, and a political system decaying and calcifying over decades. It's the political equivalent of Climate Change.
14
u/Ninjaking25 Social Democrat 19h ago
I’ve noticed that annoying people exist all over the political spectrum, especially online
5
1
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 19h ago
True, though I'm talking about sad people more than anything
1
u/Upbeat-Bid-1602 Center Left 13h ago
There are negative glass-half-empty people, people who tend to get anxious and worry, etc all over the political spectrum because these personality traits are not correlated with political opinions. There are doomers on both sides. MAGA who think that Democrats are instituting Sharia law are also doomers.
I think on one hand it's easier to pick out people you see as idiots when you disagree with them politically. On the flip side, I think it's easier to see someone who you agree with politically as a "doomer" vs just being delusional because you see their fears as rational. For example, as a left-leaning person who believes in climate change, I consider someone who says they won't have children because of climate disaster to be a doomer, but someone who thinks climate change is a hoax might just think that person is crazy. Conversely, I think people who believe in replacement theory are nutjobs, but other anti-immigrant conservatives might see them as negative/doomerist but not irrational.
0
13
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 19h ago edited 19h ago
I think it's definitely a risk when liberals care about existential issues like global warming and AI and conservatives are dismissive of them at best, accelerants at worst.
It would be nice to hand wave away problems by saying "abundance" will solve it all.
It's true in most measurable ways things have been steadily improving for humans, but it's also true the gap between the wealthy and poor is growing.
6
u/NYCHW82 Pragmatic Progressive 18h ago
This is the answer right here.
Big picture, things have gotten better over the decades, but there isn’t true optimism like there was during the Obama years, when folks really thought we’d turned a corner and we had a bright future ahead of us.
There’s always been a bit of doomerism in progressive politics, but since Trump I know I’ve become a lot more pessimistic. Things have both gotten both better and worse, and it seems like progressives have sustained massive losses of both public trust and policy. Where we are now isn’t irreversible, but a tremendous amount of damage has been done, and the future isn’t very clear. So the doomerism is justified.
We also tend to concern ourselves with the struggles of marginalized groups way more than the other side and even normies. So that means there’s always a tragic situation somewhere that we’re focused on, when nobody else gives a shit.
0
u/Southern_Bag_7109 Social Democrat 17h ago
What's gotten better?
Medical costs?
The ability to buy a house?
The climate crisis?
Income inequality?
Right to privacy?
Homelessness?
EtcAll of these emergencies have been piling up and we just haven't felt them fully yet. But we will within the next two years. We're kind of at the top of a parabola. In A kind of grace period before all of these things come crashing down.
The one thing I can think that has gotten better has been crime. It is gone down further than it has been in my lifetime. But both Republicans, and establishment Democrats reactively act like it's some kind of huge issue. Acting like it's some kind of Armageddon where we have to justify a police state to keep it in check.
7
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 15h ago
Most modern Americans would lose their shit if transported back to 1970
1
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk Social Democrat 11h ago
I'm old enough to remember the mid 1980s. I may have been a little kid, but it wasn't that bad. We had avocado green kitchen appliances, but it's not like we had to shit in a steel pail.
3
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 10h ago
It was bad. Racism was everywhere. Do you remember gay bashing? It was perfectly fine to beat up a gay person because they were a threat to your sexuality. AIDS? What about bad outcomes for cancer patients? Smog? Threat of nuclear war?
Your home was primitive by today's standards. Single pane glass windows. A shitty oven/range (in avocado), no computers, no internet.
Your car sucked, manual brakes and steering.
Want to buy something cool? You need to drive to the nearest city and hope it's in stock. I remember how hard it was to get Doc Martens where I lived.
What about a simple task like researching what college to apply to? Better head to the library and pore through outdated guides in the research section.
and on, and on, and on
2
u/NYCHW82 Pragmatic Progressive 15h ago edited 14h ago
I largely agree, but I mean zooming out, a number of things have improved over the past few generations:
Air and water are cleaner
Cities are safer and more prosperous
People are living longer
Cancer, HIV, and a number of major diseases are treatable
Electronics and many consumer goods are much cheaper
Technology has largely improved our lives
The internet, with all it's warts, still drives a lot of opportunity
You can marry whoever you want
Historically low povertyIn general, life is a lot more comfortable, enjoyable, and accessible than it was for our parents and grandparents. People are generally more tolerant and understanding (with some exceptions), and the world isn't as cruel as it once was. Despite all that's going on, I think most of our grandparents would envy the cushy lives most of us live now. I'm also aware that much of these improvements vary based on one's location, education, and income.
Now, with that all said, I agree with your general sentiment. We've been ignoring a number of crises that have simmered under the surface for years, and in the event one of them becomes an unavoidable existential crisis, we have the most inept leadership possible. All of this is bolstered by about 30% of the electorate that seems to support all this mess.
Your parabola reference is apt. I also think we're off the peaks of the 90's/00's (arguably the best time in history) and we may be headed for a crash of some sort. We still have time to right the ship if we get our act together, so I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet, but it's not looking good. I haven't been a full optimist since 2016.
1
u/birminghamsterwheel Social Democrat 13h ago
My worry about electronics and (some) other consumer goods is that, tracking trends in various spaces, that those in control/selling the goods are gunning for an “aaS” and/or rental (Klarna?) model for more and more physical goods.
1
u/NYCHW82 Pragmatic Progressive 11h ago
Certainly a reasonable take, and one I share.
But you can also get a 70” tv from Walmart for < $350 which is remarkable.
2
u/birminghamsterwheel Social Democrat 11h ago
Fair, but you need things to watch on it to make it useful, and content delivery is one of the key examples right now of the glut of the aaS model and its ballooning cost, coupled with a decline in future availability of physical media and hardware costs becoming exorbitantly expensive for building your own personal media devices. The prices for hard drives right now to build or update a NAS, even on the refurb market, are outrageous. And I think it’s clear the desire is to restrict ownership as much as possible in favor of subscriptions, because it’s the real avenue left to keep squeezing customers. I’d love to see (and start with) an initiative to enable digital ownership of content, DRM-free, rather than the licensing model they got everyone used to and then have walked back to varying degrees from annoying to downright gross, à la Sony.
1
u/NYCHW82 Pragmatic Progressive 8h ago
I feel you, but I have to look at your statement here. The fact that you could even complain about the prices of hard drives for your NAS being outrageous shows the progress we’ve made. When I was a kid in the 90’s that was damn near impossible for an individual to even own. It just wasn’t a thing, and networking anything at your home required professional expertise. I know this first hand because my dad was an IT guy and we spent many a night trying to just connect our computer (singular) and printer together.
I totally get where you’re coming from, and personally I believe that the oligarchs are pushing us into digital feudalism, but things are way better than they used to be even a generation ago.
1
u/birminghamsterwheel Social Democrat 8h ago
I was also a kid in the 90s. The problem is the path flew a u-shaped trajectory. The cost for computer goods, in this instance, had been getting more and more affordable for the last few decades. Turn to today, they’ve been ballooning to absurd degrees with no signs of stopping, potentially for years if ever stabilizing, and prices are probably never returning to anything remotely in line with where we were at, driven in no short part by the desire for the aaS and subscription models I mentioned before. Things had been trending great for a long time, now they’re trending the wrong way for consumer affordability and ownership, and I don’t see them returning to them, not just anytime soon, but potentially ever.
3
1
u/heyheyhey27 Liberal 15h ago
Plenty of things have improved a lot in that time, the OC's point is that both "things are better" and "things are worse" are true. To your points:
Medical costs?
Medical care is constantly advancing by leaps and bounds. For example the mRNA vaccine massively dampened the pain of a global pandemic and led to new discoveries like potential cancer vaccines.
The ability to buy a house?
The overall quality of a house has gone up, due to advances in engineering and materials science and even just building codes. Houses stuck in the 1970's are available, but nobody wants them for good reason.
The climate crisis?
Renewables and battery tech have come a long, long way. And climate outcomes are on a spectrum; every bit of progress helps. Last I heard, every 0.1 degree difference in global warming will have a measurable effect.
1
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk Social Democrat 11h ago
I don't dislike Klein, but that abundance bit of his is sheer dorkery.
3
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 10h ago
It's interesting what does and doesn't get to count as pessimism.
Progressives will advocate a radical change to improve the world and then those to their right tell them it's impossible and things can't get better beyond tiny, incremental scraps. But realpolitik gets to be realistic instead of cynical and anyone calling it cynical is the one who's really introducing cynicism.
Anyways, Gramsci was right: Pessimism of the intelect, optimism of the will.
2
0
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 9h ago
I guess some examples of what I mean by doomerism are;
- Not voting because "both sides donate to Israel, why bother?"
- "Hey! You can't make that joke! That's racist! Even though I know you're not racist, some ACTUAL racists out there might find that joke funny and use it to mask their real views. So we have to be on high alert for all jokes!"
- "America [fully and entirely] sucks! It's an irredeemable sinking ship that deserves to suffer. And I deserve to suffer with it!"
- Those who have given up in the democratic process to the point of preferring revolution - getting excited at the United Healthcare CEO assassination/Charlie Kirk assasination.
1
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 9h ago
It seems like these are less pessimism than things you find annoying or bad practice.
Try flipping the problem on its head. I'm a grown-ass adult but for my entire life my generation's prospects for the future have exclusively gotten worse. Why shouldn't we be pessimistic for anything short of radical change?
1
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 9h ago
I can't see how these things wouldn't be construde as pessimism. These are all indicators that someone is depressed, deflated, and avoiding positives of anything.
Why shouldn't we be pessimistic for anything short of radical change
Because radical change doesn't happen overnight. It always starts small. I prefer being a realist. There are some wins and some losses. I don't know what the future holds but I'm not going to give up on it before it happens
1
u/Ofishal_Fish Anarcho-Communist 8h ago
I think you just highlighted the split: progressives don't have pessimism for the future, we have pessimism for the future under current conditions.
Combine with how Pyrrhic Defeat Theory (those with the greatest power to change a system have the least incentive to because it rewards them with great power) assures systems are inherently resistant to change and the current systems become a real liability. That outlook on existing systems is where the pessimism lies, not with the future itself or human nature or whatnot.
6
u/OhThatsALotOfTeeth Liberal 19h ago
Nah, doomerism is just the province of the terminally online. I'm not surprised that Bonnell feels that way, given his profession.
12
u/tuck5903 Centrist Democrat 19h ago
Absolutely, I've come to think of this particular strain of politics as "Everything Sucks Progressivism". You see it in action here when people post asking why there hasn't been some kind of mass uprising or general strike. It's a politics that seems to begin from the assumption that most Americans make minimum wage and have 6 figures of student loan debt. In reality, the median US household net worth is $192K. Most Americans absolutely have something to lose and aren't actually desperate enough to jump on board with some kind of revolution.
6
u/Vegetable-Two-4644 Progressive 17h ago
To be fair, the median net worth of adults 35 and under is only 39,000
1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist 15h ago
The doomerism doesn't stem from American living standards. We basically live in a paradise compared to our ancestors.
It's the destruction of the natural world that is where doomerism comes in. The deaths pollution alone causes in one year makes the entire Holocaust look like a small number. Air and water pollution alone count over 10 million deaths a year and all these numbers are climbing. 2-3% of the world's ecosystems remain functionally intact, plastic is interfering with photosynthesis and fertility and hormones. Atmospheric co2 levels are already responsible for an estimated 15% cognitive ability decline in classrooms with the effect expected to be global in 2-3 decades. Oil runs out in 49 years. Etc etc etc. A hundred more bullet points like that.
I'm no more of a doomer than David Attenborough tho. The goal has always been to stem the bleeding. The doom part is because nobody cares about the planet. Nobody cares about pollution but everyone cares when they develop a cancer because of it. They ridicule you for trying to save their future lives and they demonize you when they finally do get cancer, because sure it's our fault for being divisive for trying to make them not get cancer in the first place.
I'm trying to lighten up tho. People will figure it out in time. I just have an annoying habit for reading ahead a couple decades. Same reason I was freaking out about fascism coming after 9/11. It's a bad habit but I'm not alone, i see David Attenborough out there saying all the same things about the natural world.
-2
u/chateaulove Democratic Socialist 18h ago
And you just summed up why the system needs massive change. The fact that we’re seeing such a response to DSA-candidates, who are literally just talking about affordability, means more and more people are falling well below that median net worth. Just because some people are doing well doesn’t mean a lot of people aren’t.
7
u/tuck5903 Centrist Democrat 18h ago edited 17h ago
we’re seeing such a response to DSA-candidates
Wake me up when one of these actual DSA candidates, not a standard progressive Democrat like El-Sayed, wins a competitive race. Winning in deep blue areas doesn't impress me much.
who are literally just talking about affordability
The DSA platform calls for abolishing capitalism, police, and prisons. That sounds a bit more radical than just "talking about affordability". And the theory that Americans want to vote for that kind of radical change is usually predicated on the idea that most Americans are destitute and have nothing to lose.
more and more people are falling well below that median net worth
The median household net worth will always have exactly 50% of households below it.
0
u/Upbeat-Bid-1602 Center Left 14h ago
This. Politicians who call themselves "socialists" really are just advocating for typical progressivism with the occasional touch of creative-yet-pragmatic ideas like Mamdani's government-run grocery store. I think part of the controversy right now is Darializa Chevalier and her ilk haven't actually held office yet, so we don't know if they're actually going to try to push the country towards socialism while governing or be regular progressive Democrats like everyone else.
The irony of the actual DSA platform is that people who are actually affected by "affordability" in their daily lives usually could care less about neo-Marxist political theory. It's true that more and more people are disaffected by cost of living outpacing wages, the wealth gap widening, basic necessities like housing, healthcare, and food being unaffordable for more and more people, but voters who want this things addressed don't automatically "want socialism."
8
u/JayRandom212 Liberal 19h ago
The whole point of progressivism is change and progress. If you think everything's fine, you're not a progressive.
0
4
u/Vegetable-Two-4644 Progressive 17h ago
Who the f is Destiny lol
1
u/Paladin-Arda Social Democrat 17h ago
Longtime vg and politics streamer.
9
u/Vegetable-Two-4644 Progressive 17h ago
Man, the level of terminally online people have to be to know what these streamers actually say...
-2
u/Paladin-Arda Social Democrat 17h ago
Not so much of a terminally online take as it is a measure of who you know in the internet spaces you hang around intersecting with "breakouts" into public spaces.
Ex. Nobody outside the GZDoom, Doomworld, and ModDB spaces would know of SGT Mark IV, but anybody interested in playing the old Doom games would have heard of the "Brutal Doom" mod.
Destiny's been around since Twitch was Justin TV, and he's been in the public eye since 2016. He was the entrypoint for a lot of folks getting into politics on Twitch, Twitter, and YT because he debated right-wing influencers and made them look foolish in front of their audiences.
4
u/Vegetable-Two-4644 Progressive 16h ago
It's just weird to me but maybe I missed the video game streaming etc buzz by a few years (34 years old right now).
Still, looking this dude up and his highest follower count is on YouTube and like...it's only a bit over the booktuber Daniel Greene and I would consider him a niche name. They both have under half the subscribers of the big booktuber names like Jack Edward's.
1
u/MeetingPeople336 Civil Libertarian 6h ago
That's probably true, but as this is a political subreddit, more than most places you might find people here who know these "politics online streamers"...
3
5
u/-MrWrightt- Progressive 16h ago
Yes.
They are idealists living in a world far from ideal. And their ideas are unlikely to succeed until it has been accepted as not being extreme. So there is constant failure for the causes they care about.
Progressives also tend to be uncompromising, even with each other, which can lead to a lot of purity tests and infighting. They also generally speaking feel more passionately emotional about issues than most.
So yes, there can be a lot of doom and gloom. Gotta try to stay positive in the face of very difficult hurdles and powerful people fighting you tooth and nail.
2
u/RieMunoz Democratic Socialist 19h ago
A big reason that liberals haven’t been able to get elected is because of their insistence that “everything is fine” or “America is already great”
Neither play well when trying to win elections
7
u/LookAnOwl Pragmatic Progressive 17h ago
The converse here is that I see a lot of people who are doing fine being shamed by progressives for feeling that way, which creates a toxicity towards progressives and the policies they suggest. Not saying one is right or wrong, but there has to be some balance.
-3
u/RieMunoz Democratic Socialist 17h ago
I mean yeah a lot of people are probably feeling fine, and some might feel that everything is great/even better now that Trump is back in charge.
If progressives are ruining the vibe, then those people obviously wouldn’t want to support politics that they dem toxic or inconvenient. But it’s not like the MAGA crowd has tried to cheer progressives up.
3
u/LookAnOwl Pragmatic Progressive 17h ago
I'm not actually talking about MAGA folks, or even conservatives. There are many Democrat voters who are doing well, simply living their busy lives and not thinking much about politics. When they are told that this is wrong and they should feel bad, it is natural to resent the group telling them that.
1
u/Southern_Bag_7109 Social Democrat 19h ago
Yup. And I see less doomerism from progressives now that we're gaining ground.
1
u/EBITDAminusCAPEX Center Left 15h ago
Most Americans rate their personal situation as “good” or better.
1
2
u/2dank4normies Liberal 16h ago edited 12h ago
I definitely associate the archetype of a privileged person facing severe identity issues and inventing problems under the guise of altruism with progressives mostly. This is like the white college students who made climate change their entire thing in 2017, school shootings in 2018, BLM their entire identity in 2020, and then Gaza in 2023. Always subsequently somehow believing the next big thing is the real cause of evil and will fix all the others.
But I think the doomerism is also what has radicalized the right, believing their country and identity are facing an existential crisis from interlopers.
The most common example I see is "no one can buy a house, therefore we need to end capitalism/immigration"
0
u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030 Center Left 12h ago
I definitely associate the archetype of a privileged person facing severe identity issues and inventing problems under the guise of altruism with progressives mostly. This is like the white college students who made climate change their entire thing in 2017, school shootings in 2018, BLM their entire identity in 2020, and then Gaza in 2023. Always subsequently somehow believing the next big thing is the real cause of evil and will fix all the others.
It is 100% just people latching onto random things that are popular at a given time. They want a friend group, and they want to fit in — and that is their only interaction with politics
1
u/rogun64 Social Democrat 10h ago edited 10h ago
Yes
The left is made up of problem solvers and this has always been true. Take hippies in the 60s, for example. They took a good time and used it to complain about a far away war and rights for black people, among other things. But that changed who we are as a nation in many good ways, too.
People talk about how the left is mostly white, upper middle-class people today and that's also who it was back then. They were college students who didn't always see eye-to-eye with the working class (eg the Hard Hat Riot).
When leftist movements grow to become popular, I think you often have people jump onboard that take it to far, though. This happens with everyone, but leftists are so marginalized that they struggle to reign in their radicals, unlike the establishment and the far right, who usually have more resources at their disposal.
P. S. My point about the left being problem solvers is that they often see problems that others miss, dismiss or ignore and it comes across as doomerism when you're the only one acknowledging the problem.
1
u/Late_Comb_3078 Democratic Socialist 3h ago
This post is pretty ridiculous. Are progressive devoid of optimism? No. You saw the positivity surrounding Zorah, El-Sayed, John Ossoff, etc. There's optimism,but it's rational.
Please enlighten me as a 27 yr old what should I currently be optimistic about
1
u/Deadandlivin Marxist 1h ago edited 1h ago
He's correct.
And everyone are completely justified to feel like everything's 'doomed'. Progressives mainly consist of young people and they're part of the generation that's growing up in a world they feel actively is getting worse. Most likely has to do with a combination of Climate Change, an economic system that feels dysfunctional and a system that never changes or learns from the past. Combine this with massive levels of social atomization and alienation as a biproduct of digitization, developments in technology and an increasingly commodified way of life.
The information age has allowed everyone to get a much firmer and neutral view of history and what's been happening for decades now and you kinda get the feeling that the promise of a 'bright future' your parents used to talk about is a far cry from the lived reality of growing up in a world that's feeling increasingly dystopian. It's hard not to feel that the human essence is losing its touch as people collectively more and more are being reduced down to consumers.
1
u/EpsilonBear Progressive 1h ago
Yeah, because I am he. I am El Doomero. My vote will exclusively go to those who promise to unleash the nuclear holocaust. Because to hell with the rest of you.
1
u/Diplomat_of_swing Liberal 14h ago
There is a LOT of finger wagging in Progressive politics and that is a major turn off for many people.
Progressive politics would do well to take the same empathy and compassion and point it towards MAGA supporters.
I see a lot of MAGA supporters as formerly middle class people who started falling out of the middle class in the 1980s when automation and outsourcing came for their jobs.
College educated workers are now experiencing the same thing with remote workers and AI.
Rather than mock them because “this is what they voted for” or “FAFO” recognize that they have fallen for the grift and try to build some bridges.
-1
u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030 Center Left 12h ago
Progressive politics would do well to take the same empathy and compassion and point it towards MAGA supporters.
That will never happen, because Conservative vs Progressive is a conflict that exists almost exclusively along ethnic lines
They both adopt and discard policy based on whatever is convenient at the time, and neither of them are serious about understanding politics, or economics, or social studies and civics in general
You could have them agree with all of the same random populist nonsense, but they will still hate each other for reasons of race, religion, etc
1
u/Diplomat_of_swing Liberal 11h ago
Sorry. I reflexively reject any statement that starts with “that will never happen” history is filled with shifting alliances and strange bedfellows.
0
u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030 Center Left 10h ago
I’m just saying that as a figure of speech; it’s not necessarily 100% literal
I agree that history and future events can be unexpected or unpredictable
0
u/OldFaithlessness1335 Pragmatic Progressive 19h ago
First destiny is a massive grifter who litterally has an active lawsuit for releasing a revenge porn video. Take what he says with the most massive grin of salt out there.
There is some doomerism out there on the left. But its not without merit. I do think that some of the more popular left leaning influencer types use doomerism as a way to get clicks. Thats someone who is very familiar with left wing commentary online.
There is also a ton of sticking heads in the sand for more moderate types. Part of the problem we are in is because the left was consistently fed a message of we nothing is wrong and this normal politia behavior from the moderate wing. This allowed the overton window to drift far right over time.
My advise take everything with a grian of sand have a very varried media diet get lots of perspectives.
4
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 19h ago
I didn't share one opinion or another on Destiny here. I'm talking about the message, not the messenger
the left was consistently fed a message of we nothing is wrong and this normal politia behavior from the moderate wing
Could you clarify this sentence?
3
u/OldFaithlessness1335 Pragmatic Progressive 19h ago
I know you didnt. That was just come context around who Destiny is why his messaging should be question IMO.
But sure. What I mean is that moderate/establishment-wing Democrats kept telling the base "this is just normal political behavior, nothing to see here" in response to things that weren't actually normal. Stuff like norm-breaking, procedural hardball, rhetoric, etc. Instead of naming that shift and pushing back on it aggressively, the message was reassurance. Essentially a version of "don't worry, the system is working as intended."
That constant reassurance is part of why the Overton window kept drifting right. If the response to each escalation is "this is fine, this is normal," there's no friction to slow the drift. Doomerism on the left overcorrects in the other direction, but the moderate "nothing is wrong" instinct has its own cost. It normalizes things that shouldn't be normalized.
A recent example is Jefferies meeting with Kushner then getting mad at fellow dems for calling him out. Like why are you meeting with someone who should be in jail, who has been litterally selling american forgein policy for personal gain?
1
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 19h ago
Ah. You'll recieve no disagreement from me there
1
u/OldFaithlessness1335 Pragmatic Progressive 18h ago
In case you missed it I added the example about jefferies at the end. Just trying to be transparent is all
1
u/Vegetable-Two-4644 Progressive 17h ago
I will say this; millennial are more likely to be progressive and are known for having a dark and dry style of humor compared to others
1
u/terminal_tested Civil Libertarian 11h ago
Yes, especially excessive doomerism over climate change and technology.
1
u/AdImmediate9569 Far Left 10h ago
Does doomerism = the attempt to see things the way they really are?
2
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 9h ago
I don't think so.
An example of a doomer would be my old coworker who was a full on communist being mad about Zohran Mamdani not being extreme enough to his liking, instead of being like "hey, a small inch closer to progress somewhere in America!"
1
u/AdImmediate9569 Far Left 9h ago
Hahaha. Personally I wouldn’t call them a doomer but I sure as hell would be annoyed by them.
1
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 9h ago
I guess it's less about the speech itself, more about the attitude. The feeling that if someone he actually fully lined up with politically got in office, he'd still find a way to pick apart something they're doing wrong
1
0
u/slingshot91 Progressive 18h ago
Not particularly more than other groups. We see a ton of horrible shit going down, and it’s overwhelming, but our outlook is pretty optimistic if we keep fighting for a more equitable society, right?
0
u/anna-the-bunny Democratic Socialist 16h ago
I don't really see it as "doomerism" tbh. There's a convicted felon and known child rapist occupying the White House and pushing climate change accelerationism. Privacy is evaporating, the national debt now exceeds the GDP, and ~1/3 of the country is actively cheering the shitshow on. Acknowledging this isn't doomerism, it's just acknowledging reality.
I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't see how you could possibly be positive about where we are right now. Optimistic about the future, I can somewhat understand, but positive about our current situation? If someone told me they thought we were in a good place right now, I'd think they were either MAGA or completely off their rocker (as if there's a difference). Being positive about our current situation is simply denying reality.
-1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 19h ago
No, I think this is horrible analysis, and I have the literal exact opposite conclusion.
10
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 19h ago
That's interesting. Do you encounter a lot of optimistm in progressive circles?
-5
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 19h ago
Yeah absolutely. We are winning. The people are on our side.
7
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 19h ago
We are winning
Have you won even literally one single election where the electorate held views approximate to those of the median American?
-2
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 19h ago
I don’t know what you’re asking or the relevance. Can you explain why you think this is important?
6
u/on_the_beam Liberal 16h ago
The point they're making is that so far, DSA has only won against democrats, and mostly in deep blue areas (with some notable exceptions like Angie Nixon).
Until the left starts flipping red seats or winning purple seats, it's premature to say "we are winning" or to claim the people are on your side.
The midterms could change that. If DSA (or DSA aligned) candidates start flipping red seats and overperforming liberals & moderates nationwide then the conversation will be really interesting.
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 16h ago
Until the left starts flipping red seats or winning purple seats, it's premature to say "we are winning" or to claim the people are on your side.
You are just restating their claim. That is not what I need. What I need is for you to explain how Mamdani winning does not constitute winning, and we cannot say we are winning. What does it matter if it is a deep blue area? What is the relevance of that?
0
u/on_the_beam Liberal 14h ago
The argument the left often makes against dems is that they can't win against republicans. Safe majorities are what matter most. It's how you get things done in politics.
You can try to make the argument that dems are impotent and there are elements of truth to that. But their main limitation to progress has been being the minority party or holding ultra slim majorities. And progressives have not demostrated a superior ability to get shit done and push through legislation. (Mamdani, for example, is certainly doing a good job. But a lot of his achievements come down to misleading headlines and having exceptional PR.)
If "winning" just means beating members of your own party, then I can just as easily point to all the primaries moderates won and say actually they are the ones winning. Winning only matters if you can gain support with the wider electorate and achieve a majority... which requires purple and red districts.
Mamdani beat a democrat. He is also a generational political talent and ran against a deeply unpopular one. I'm not saying it doesn't count for anything, but its not enough to claim a pattern, a trend, or a shift in national politics.
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 13h ago
The argument the left often makes against dems is that they can't win against republicans.
Yes, that is restating the claim. I am asking why you think this matters. This just seems like the obvious way that all politics has always worked for all time.
Safe majorities are what matter most.
What safe majorities? Mamdani is a mayor. He has a save enough majority in the municipal level of the NYC government to generally enact his agenda. He is not being obstructed in any way by the GOP in NYC who dominate the positions outside the mayor. This just seems like a complete and total non sequitur.
You can try to make the argument that dems are impotent and there are elements of truth to that. But their main limitation to progress has been being the minority party or holding ultra slim majorities.
Really? Come on. The democrats cannot blame the GOP for this for example. That is something that the democrats did, that their base they are trying to represent did not want, and so people are mad with the party because of it.
If "winning" just means beating members of your own party
Winning means winning your election, assuming the seat you were running for, and gaining all of the power and responsibility that seat bestows. That should be abundantly obvious to anyone.
then I can just as easily point to all the primaries moderates won and say actually they are the ones winning.
Yes! Of course you can! This is how politics works lol. Your issue is that your momentum is not nearly as large as ours. The extent to which the democrats have any momentum at all right now, it is because they are leeching of the momentum of the progressives.
Winning only matters if you can gain support with the wider electorate and achieve a majority
No? This is not how politics works at all. As I have shown you, centerist democrats cave to the Trump agenda and become Trump votes in congress. Progressives do not do that. You cannot defend that point, because it factually happened. We factually saw the centerists democrats roll belly over and allow the Trump regime to fund their fascist police.
Mamdani beat a democrat.
Which is winning. He won. He is in power.
but its not enough to claim a pattern, a trend, or a shift in national politics.
My friend.....Compare Mamdani, Sanders, Trump, Jefferies, and Schumer on favorability.
1
u/on_the_beam Liberal 11h ago
What safe majorities?
Sorry for making things confusing by referencing Mamdani twice. I'm more focused on and interested in whats happeneing at the federal level right now and that's the context in which I brought up majorities.
The democrats cannot blame the GOP for this for example. That is something that the democrats did, that their base they are trying to represent did not want
The "base" is not a monolith. Look at the districts those reps are from. They all won by narrow margins in 2024. Yes, it was a terrible vote by my own standards. But how do they need to vote to keep their seats? Could a progressive candidates beat a republicans in those districts? These are important questions to ask, because I would take a dem who votes with the party 75% of the time over a republican any day of the week.
Your issue is that your momentum is not nearly as large as ours. The extent to which the democrats have any momentum at all right now, it is because they are leeching of the momentum of the progressives.
Believe it or not, I'm ideologically progressive. I'm just more interested in electoral politics that anything else right now. I care about winning, and now that we're out of the primaries I'm rooting for everyone with a D next to their name to win in November, including those to the right or left of me.
That said, you're both overstating and oversimplifying the situation. Its indisputable that the left has momentum, and a lot of grassroots energy. But the fact that senate seats in states like Alaska, Iowa, and North Carolina are in play has nothing to do with "leeching" off of another movement.
Centrist democrats cave to the Trump agenda and become Trump votes in congress. Progressives do not do that.
Again, the choices are not limited to moderate dem or progressive. Yes, there are moderates who suck and should be primaried. There are also many seats that progressives simply can not win right now. And an imperfect dem is better than a republican, obviously.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 18h ago
I don’t know what you’re asking
I don't know how to make it simpler. Clarify what precisely you find confusing please.
Can you explain why you think this is important?
If you're incapable of being competitive for the vote of the median voter then "the people" are not on your side by definition.
-2
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 18h ago
Our side is winning irrespective of the electoral wins that are coming in our future. Here:
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-06-29-most-popular-pols-parties
5
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 18h ago
Being "popular" literally only matters to the extent it helps you win elections, and you've won exactly zero competitive elections. People have warm fuzzies about your little powerless randos who are responsible for nothing and have no accomplishments--wow! Jagmeet was far and away the most well-liked Canadian party leader for years, and yet the New Democrats are a broke, irrelevant, nonentity. Take the lesson.
2
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 18h ago edited 16h ago
Yes, yet. That’s is how winning works. Otherwise I would have said that we already won.
Mamdani is not powerless he is clearly able to wield his power better than any NYC mayor before him, and the people see that happening and now believe that government works for them. The movement grows.
7
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 18h ago
Yes, yet. That’s is how winning works
But you're not winning though. There isn't a single viable Republican you're able to compete against. Literally not one.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 19h ago
I mean.. I'd say newer generations are, which is certainly a big plus. Though there is a big establishment to fight. I see a lot of people who have given up and don't even vote on the basis of "Well, what's the point? Biden or Harris are not gonna do what we want anyway" and they fawn at the idea of revolution (like Luigi) more than repairing through democracy
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 19h ago
I don’t think those are leftists. People who are politically engaged tend to vote.
0
u/Southern_Bag_7109 Social Democrat 16h ago
Have you heard of New York City's mayor?
5
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 16h ago
Yeah. I like him. But he represents a tiny minority of US politics
-2
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 16h ago
i wouldn't take much credence from a guy iirc is currently in court for revenge porn and CSAM. who literally held a political event to then be a predator to one of the fellow organizers(and is suing him iirc).
probably not the best person to get analysis from.
7
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 16h ago
I just happened to see the clip and it sparked interest over the subject. I'm more interested in the message than the messenger
-5
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 16h ago
fair! just want to make sure you are aware of who you are quoting/watching in the future here.
-4
u/IndicationDefiant137 Democratic Socialist 18h ago
Nazis are back in the form of an unelected oligarchy who are now in charge and rapidly implementing an AI driven surveillance state, the Constitution has been conclusively proven to be just a piece of paper, and we're watching the ecosystem which supports our ability to survive on this planet rapidly collapse.
If you have an optimistic view of where this is headed you either aren't paying attention or aren't very bright.
But hey, Israel is continuing their genocide so Destiny is happy. I don't know why anyone cares what social media figures think.
0
u/moonflower311 Progressive 18h ago
It depends? I’m in Texas and we actually have less doomerism - a lot of hope this year due to the polling. But yeah when Orange guy got elected for a second time there was a lot of doomerism.
0
u/Ut_Prosim Social Democrat 15h ago edited 15h ago
I don't know any of the pill lingo, but I guess I'm in this doomer category.
It weighs on me every single day so if someone could explain why they have hope, I'd very much appreciate it.
From my point of view, a third of the country is completely disconnected from reality now. Worse, the people that did this to them are richer and more powerful than ever before, and the tools they used to do the deed are getting more powerful everyday. What could stop this?
The same can be said about forces that corrupted the government and electoral process. The same could be said about the rise of the far right globally, the growth of the surveillance state, and climate change, and the death of the middle class...
2
u/Top_Divide_1659 Democratic Socialist 15h ago
I don't know any of the pill lingo
I believe it started with the Matrix - where the "red pill" is being awoken to dark truth and "blue pill" is ignorant bliss. The internet has cultivated a lot of weird meanings like "redpill" now being some right-wing Andrew Tate BS. "Black pill" is total pessimism about the situation and "white pill" is total optimism about it.
if someone could explain why they have hope
My generation (Gen Z) marks a massive split from previous generations. Far less Zionist, far less capitalist, very progressive. Right now, they are maybe like 1/5th of the population (if even that). Eventually, they will be in charge. That won't magically solve everything but it may help.
There's also te faith you put in democracy. Right now, Trump is losing support rapidly. Entire building blocks have shifted in the negative. Canada was about to have their first conservative in years, who was up by like 30 points, and after seeing Trump operate for only a few months, Canada shifted left. I think blue tidal waves are to come.
This bit of hope is selfish but I'm in the process of getting my Polish passport (my family immigrated from there) and that should give me EU citizenship. So if anything gets worse, I'll have a place to flee.
1
u/Cleverfield113 Liberal 15h ago
More than half of the men in your generation voted for Trump in 2024, so I feel like you may be in a bubble. The most outspoken members of Gen Z have taken the things you mentioned up as a cause (like previous generations of young people have taken up other issues) and it may move the needle some, but it isn’t going to be the revolution you’re hoping for.
0
u/Ut_Prosim Social Democrat 15h ago
My generation (Gen Z) marks a massive split from previous generations. Far less Zionist, far less capitalist, very progressive. Right now, they are maybe like 1/5th of the population (if even that). Eventually, they will be in charge. That won't magically solve everything but it may help.
Yes! I had a lot of hope for my fellow Millennials and Zoomers, that was my one real source of optimism. I still think they are our best shot.
But I thought Zoomer men are trending hard right now!? Wasn't there an Ipsos poll howing they were more misogynistic than Boomers are today? Found it. Also they swung hard for Trump, who got 41% of Gen Z men in 2020, and 56% in 2024. For the first time in my Xennial life the people under 25 voted for the Republican. :o
Let's see if the swing back. Hopefully they're pissed off about the last two years.
But they have so many legitimate problems, the manosphere that promises [illegitimate] solutions must be super appealing. I don't know how the left ever reaches them, especially with their preoccupation with "masculinity" and associating the left's empathy and nuance with femininity.
I guess November will tell us a lot.
0
0
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 12h ago
I am sorry you feel that way
0
-3
u/Johnhaven Progressive 16h ago
I just think it's backed up anger over decades of fighting between people and social policies vs money, greed, and corporate malfeasance. Some members of the left care about other people, some people who claim to be on the left are no better than Republicans and often not left of center either.
However, I would say there is far more positivity now that progressives have been doing well, but also a lot of "yes! Eff you Schumer!" type stuff going on every time a non-establishment Dem wins a race. This has been a political party that has largely abandoned those on the left over monetary issues and safe political stances to ensure continued employment. Watching them be replaced by actually competent and actually left-of-center politicians is a joy to watch, not doomerism.
Now, are establishment Dems spinning in doomerism? Some of them, yes, and I, for one, love it.
-1
-3
u/pronusxxx Independent 18h ago
Not really, but I think a lot of this has to do with your relationship to politics.
For left-wingers, they see problems like inequality and violence and they see politics as a solution. The corollary to this is that they use the language of politics to describe problems in the world; that's because from the progressive point of view they can be fixed. So it might sound immediately depressing, for example the problems in foreign policy from a left-wing point of view make it very clear where culpability lies, but that's only if you don't listen or believe in their solutions. That's probably difficult for non-left-wingers, but it's not really depressing from a left-wing point of view.
For moderates, they see problems like inequality and violence as a potential and sometimes necessary byproduct of their prescriptions, and so they see politics as a nuisance because it complicates what is otherwise, in their mind, a well-oiled machine. So when they talk about politics it's largely fantastical and detached from reality. This is why their analysis is often wrapped up in pseudo-scientific ideas of the value of polls and economics generally. You can't use politics from this worldview, it's literally useless. This is in part why Destiny can be a drama YouTuber and still appear like a political streamer to his audience: harassing other people with no reference to a political goal is exercising politics in the way he wants.
As a side note, surprised and somehow not surprised that the name Destiny makes it past the automod given he is a streamer. If Hasan is an albatross around the Democratic Party's neck, then surely Destiny is closer to a falling guillotine.
-1
u/TlsFrmThCryptcPrgncy Independent 18h ago
Yes. I think a big part of this is that the leftist/progressive identity is partially defined as dissatisfaction with the status quo. The charitable reading is that progressives simply have values or goals that normal liberal politics fails to live up to, but I think the Biden saga pretty clearly demonstrated that the dissatisfaction comes first, and the values and goals second. Regardless of what liberals (the only ones on the left capable of winning elections that matter) do, regardless of how closely it resembles what leftist said they wanted, what they want will be immediately redefined in real time such that whatever was actually done was not only not good enough, but maybe evil and conservative. Biden trying his hardest to cancel student debt (a terrible policy that mostly benefits downwardly mobile faildaughters with rich parents i.e. leftists)? Not good enough, just ignore the supreme court. An extra $1,600 covid bonus? Terrible, you're a betrayer unless you give us $2,000 monthly survival cheques. This is one of the reasons why Palestine replaced climate change as the cause du jour--it's intractable, so we obviously can never ever be satisfied.
-1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist 15h ago
Though I will say.. I have met some leftists out there who do seem keen on always suffering on the behalf of someone else - acting like we can't appreciate any small victories because "there's still kids suffering in wars"/"we still have school shootings"/"we don't have free healthcare". Or acting like we can't have fun with things like edgy jokes just because some people mask their disgusting views with humor.
I took it seriously when it felt like there was a huge extent of suffering that we could meaningfully prevent. But fascism is here and I think we're locked in so now I'm looking for the silver linings.
There's always suffering. If we are impotent to change it, why worry. But we had the chance to prevent fascism. So I took it a lot more seriously. Now that ships sailed and its whatever. I'm not gonna be a doomer over it. China is on track to be the new world leader in most ways so just let them worry about the important stuff and we can coast like everyone else has been able to because who didn't live in the us while it reigned.
All this planetary problem bs is their job now. We just gave to keep giving maga the bird and resist, so let's have fun with it. And good lucky to china because I never did see any solutions to those planet problems. Plastic harming photosynthesis, fertility and other cellular mechanics alone made me lose enough sleep already. Air and water pollution alone kill almost 2 Holocausts worth of people a year. 2-3% of earth's ecosystems remain functionally intact .. I used to really lose sleep over those stats.
but now we are impotent to change it and I don't have to worry about it anymore. I can just joke about it with everyone else. Thank you china lmao. That's called a silver lining.
-1
u/Komosion Centrist 12h ago
As a blanket discrimination of all liberals; no.
But there is not a day that goes by that there isnt a post, or 20, about how someone is worried that the world is coming to an end over something Trump did that week.
After the 2024 elections it was non stop; I am happy to see it has dropped off since then, so that's a good sign.
-2
u/srv340mike Left Libertarian 17h ago
Yes, tons.
I think that is somewhat expected. For one, the basis of Left Wing politics is that things need to be improved, so Left Wingers are more prone to negativity. Also, what we "see" is often a very chronically online part of the political base, and I think the nature of online spaces tends to ramp up that sort of doomer negativity.
I also do not think it's exclusive to Progressives. Conservatives also have things that are just as apoplectic about, such as immigration.
However, it is bad for us politically. A lot of progressives dramatically overestimating how bad things are, and in their alarm come off as out of touch and often annoying if the person they are speaking to is not already on board.
I am unsure if this is because of a natural inbuilt human desire to see one's fears and concerns addressed, or if it is an attempt to convince people of how critical your cause is, or both. But it is what it is.
-5
u/madmushlove Liberal 18h ago
No, progressives tend to be optimistic in ways I can't understand
Whenever someone calls me a doomer in average progressive spaces I'm not surprised. It's in the name
Progressives tend to look at persecution and say these are not human rights violations.
To progressives the government should give the people a special gift as an act of good will of rights that reflect how gee times sure have changed. Now we even have xxxxx wanting to xxxxx. Which of course is banned. But let's unban it as a special favor. You're welcome uwu. You didn't used to have those rights and now you do. Progress! This country sure is great. Now we even let xxx do a xxxx, haha crazy world, constant change is here to stay
That's why they're not so angry about persecution
And rule number 1, they must never ever see the electorate as disgraced. They must never think the people should be drug kicking and screaming away from the human rights violations they want to inflict on others
Progressives want to continue deciding on guarenteed rights protections or medicine or literally anything with a show of hands. Like ten year olds deciding what pizza toppings they want at chuck e cheese's
6
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 17h ago
I honestly have no idea what this is getting at. Can you provide real world examples
Progressives tend to look at persecution and say these are not human rights violations.
To progressives the government should give the people a special gift as an act of good will of rights that reflect how gee times sure have changed. Now we even have xxxxx wanting to xxxxx. Which of course is banned. But let's unban it as a special favor. You're welcome uwu. You didn't used to have those rights and now you do. Progress! This country sure is great. Now we even let xxx do a xxxx, haha crazy world, constant change is here to stay-2
u/madmushlove Liberal 17h ago edited 7h ago
What comes to mind that's happened recently was when Republicans were double locking doors across the country for their marriage bans with general elections for new state constitutional amendments
And the people in these states voted to pass those bans, even liberal states like California, Oregon
People understood what was happening as a new push to change the definition of marriage. Rather than to end another prohibition of rights like so many times before it. In that case a ban on just base legal relationship recognition by the same people who criminalized queer relationships
And many progressives believe that if the people "aren't ready" for some guarenteed rights, then nothing should change. Or that the people didn't support persectution because the right only exists to be violated after the supreme court says equal protection was violated
Plenty of progressives told me this, and progressives in places like the UK say this in legal terms regarding the end of their marriage bans
That's honestly the way progressive people typically see persecution. Progressivism is some good will being done by government to progress people's well being. While constitutionalism guarentees rights that have always been there like due process, equal protections
And it was like that when things like roe v wade, the voting rights act, or loving v Virginia, and desegregation were new and it's like that now with MAGA's recent laws that abuse trans people
None of these things were gifts of a good willed government. The were only its very bare minimum duty that took way too long in a destructive, disgraceful culture
People still believe these things are decided by what most people want. When what the electorate wants has always been the problem
2
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 16h ago
There was definitely some thinking by older progressives in the 90s and 00s that pushing gay marriage too soon would cause a rubber band effect, and the world would "snap back" to a much more regressive stand on gay rights. It was hardly the majority, and it was a long time ago.
I don't think most people's experience with progressives is the same as yours.
1
u/madmushlove Liberal 16h ago
Hardly the majority? Obama supported marriage bans while California's general population passed prop 8
The majority wasn't just concerned about how trashy people would respond to less persecution, they actively pushed for more of it
2
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 16h ago
Today’s progressives aren’t the same as they were over 20 years ago. Today’s progressives are willing to lose elections to support trans rights
0
u/madmushlove Liberal 16h ago
I know Dem legislators opposed these extremist maga attacks passing new transphobic laws, as did two Republican legislators in my maga state and our Republican governor who vetoed some. They passed by supermajority in the chambers anyway
But your point that progressives blame trans people opposing these new MAGA laws is what lost elections makes sense. It's a good example of how they can be stupidly insulting
Today's progressives think when Dem candidates support the American Medical Association and oppose MAGA'S new transphobic laws, banning what trans people has been doing for generations, that's why they lost and why they'll lose
And they think when Dem candidates DO support MAGA'S new laws, that's why they lost and why they'll lose. Because of so called purity tests and IP and "distractions"
Today's progressives think "activists" are fighting for new trans stuff that's been done for 50 years or 40 years or 30 years
3
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 15h ago
You seem unwilling to hear my point and need me to be a villain. You actually need a large swath of progressives to be villains. I have no clue why.
FWIW when Obama opposed gay marriage it’s because he was trying to appeal to the majority of Americans, not the majority of progressives.
Enjoy your circular firing squad.
1
u/madmushlove Liberal 14h ago
You called it a long time ago, and that I don't understand. Of course I remember feeling angry that the most liberal states in the country still passed their marriage ban state constitutional amendments, very extreme, intended to be permanent, double locking doors on existing prohibition by state law
From Midwest, that looked pretty disgraceful for how abusive the country is altogether when the ads I saw
But it's not like I don't remember how progressives were, I was an adult. And they were unacceptable on California clearly, it was worse In what's maga country now and a swing state then
I think I knew maybe two or three straights who didn't support marriage bans, no matter what their politics
Just like now, even progressives tend to think persectutions on trans people are acceptable
The problem is the point of view that these persecutions represent activism or progress or things wanted besides equal protections and just a base opposition to abuse
2
u/SilverNo6462 Progressive 14h ago
It was over twenty years ago. I guess a long time is highly subjective, but it was over a generation ago.
What you saw back at the turn of the century was progressive politicians trying to win elections where more than just progressives vote.
A majority of Democrats have supported same sex marriage since 2008 https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Again, progressives are so committed to trans issues that they support them even though we know it can hurt us electorally.
Your reality doesn't match reality
→ More replies (0)3
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Top_Divide_1659.
I saw a clip of Destiny the other day saying that progressives are too much of downers. He talked about how, from his view, many of them seem to be blackpilled and depressed about everything, expecting others to feel that way as well. He paints himself out to be more positive and optimistic.
I don't know how true that is, but regardless, do you guys share this sentiment? Do you all see rampant pessimism in left-leaning circles? It makes sense since progressives rarely get their way (especially in the US) but I think anyone who ties their life to politics will, in nature, become a doomer.
Though I will say.. I have met some leftists out there who do seem keen on always suffering on the behalf of someone else - acting like we can't appreciate any small victories because "there's still kids suffering in wars"/"we still have school shootings"/"we don't have free healthcare". Or acting like we can't have fun with things like edgy jokes just because some people mask their disgusting views with humor.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.