There is a difference between liberal idpol and instersectional liberation struggles. And /r/stupidpol isn't full of "class reductionists" but closet reactionaries who prefer the aesthetics of the left and pretend accordingly on the fucking internet.
"Class reductionists" in real life (as opposed to fringe internet communities full of morons) are just Marxists or proletarians who unfortunately might have some shitty, bigoted opinions on certain issues. And I'm sorry but in order to have an even remotely effective communist or labor movement IRL you're going to have to accept that you will inevitably encounter quite a few of those people within the movement and have to co-exist with them.
The whole fucking point of the Marxist structural criticism of society as one of class struggle is that capitalism melts all that is solid into air and material relations between people DO get reduced to common class struggle. Gay and straight have vastly different preferences. Black and white have vastly different experiences. Women face institutional discrimination that men don't. But the thing that all share in common is a CLASS STATUS. Gay or straight, black or white, male or female, ALL ARE WORKERS. And conversely, this also means that you can be a gay billionaire, or a female billionaire, or a black billionaire, but you are still one of the bourgeoisie and your actions are driven by a class interest. This is precisely the distinction between liberal idpol and leftist liberation struggles. When Morgan Freeman denounces structural impediments to black advancement in bourgeois society as "Bullshit. Anyone can do it (just look at me)." he is reinforcing a white supremacist social structure by invoking black exceptionalism - because he has survived and succeeded against all odds in his occupation, this somehow proves there is no institutional discrimination. When military-industrial complex defense juggernaughts appoint a majority of women CEOs, this is lauded as an accomplishment for feminism by the media, and this serves the purpose of reinforcing a class dictatorship by invoking a myth of liberal meritocracy. When a billionaire comes out as gay, we get a million think pieces about what a landmark this is, but it's reinforcing prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals by again invoking the exceptionalism that reinforcing the myth of liberal meritocracy. The advancement of oppressed minorities into the ranks of the bourgeoisie is not a victory for liberation of the oppressed, but a means of reinforcing the class dictatorship. The only way for true liberation of oppressed minorities such as women, homosexuals, and African-Americans is through the class dictatorship of the proletariat, and that is only achieved through the class struggle. While this does not guarantee the liberation of these minorities (looking at you, actually existing communist countries) is forms the foundations necessary for the actual liberation of those minorities.
While it is unfortunate that plenty of Marxists, self-proclaimed "socialists", and proletarians do not fully comprehend the intersection of these liberation struggles with the class struggle, this does not conjure "class reductionism" into real existence.
“Class reductionists” in real life (as opposed to fringe internet communities full of morons) are just Marxists or proletarians who unfortunately might have some shitty, bigoted opinions on certain issues. And I’m sorry but in order to have an even remotely effective communist or labor movement IRL you’re going to have to accept that you will inevitably encounter quite a few of those people within the movement and have to co-exist with them.
Yeah no, that shit ain't gonna fly, and if you try to make it fly you're gonna be in for a hell of shock when your ahistorical and incoherent conception of class falls apart in the face of actual existing social dynamics
That's the problem with class reductionists, you describe a set of conditions that YOU WANT to exist, not the conditions that ACTUALLY exist, you discount the role of identity formation and cultural hegemony and then wonder why your class overtures fall flat in the face of liberal media narratives, it's the leftoid version of "why do they vote against their interests???"
You don't seem to understand that it isn't sufficient to just point out how hypocritical the liberals are in their cynical usage of idpol, but to offer an alternative to those narratives, instead you offer denial and demands of conformity and uniformity, "Just get along with your racist coworkers because it'll work out for you in the end" this is fuckin idiocy, we don't work in the 19th century factory anymore, imagine trying to implement this strategy in the service dominated economy of today, see how far your coalition building goes with this rhetoric
It's interesting, in the first sentence you claim to recognize the difference between liberal idpol and intersectional liberation struggles, yet I see no evidence of this recognition in the rest of your comment
I'll preface this by noting that the tone of this post is very blunt and to the point, and it's not intended to vicious or hostile but just...neutral. Frank observation. I feel I need to clarify this in advance.
You know what, fuck it, I'll post my response to this, even though it's largely reflexive anger to a "controversial" statement that gestures insistently at something and then doesn't indicate what that thing is.
You don’t seem to understand that it isn’t sufficient to just point out how hypocritical the liberals are in their cynical usage of idpol, but to offer an alternative to those narratives, instead you offer denial and demands of conformity and uniformity,
"We are not enemies, we may be different based on race, gender, sexuality, and so but we all share a common class relation, a common lived experience as a working person. I have more in common with you, a black/female/homosexual colleague, than I do with any white male cishet billionaire. These petty divides are exactly how the ruling class - the real enemy to all of us - keep us divided, atomized, competing against and despising each other. That capitalism forcibly socializes our production, forces us, a disparate group of individuals from wildly different backgrounds, to come together as one entity and combine our labor in order to accomplish the needs of mass production. This makes us the revolutionary force that drives history. We are organized in such a fashion that the means of production are literally operated by our hands while being owned by others - we merely need to take that power into our hands in order to fundamentally change society!"
This is literally the alternative pitch to liberal idpol. The is the dialectic of class struggle. And it has never fundamentally changed even since Marx published his original writings. This is the alternative to "More :clap: female/black/gay :clap: war criminals!" And it requires the emphasis on class, the connection of intersecting liberation struggles for oppressed minorities such as women, racial minorities, and LGBT people. Class is the one force that unites that centrifugal demographics that can otherwise be easily turned against each other.
Prejudice arises not as a personal moral failing, but as a lack of understanding and social interaction resulting from discriminatory and prejudiced social structures. Capitalism reduces the material relation of production to that of working class and owning class. It forces people of wildly disparate backgrounds - race, gender, sexuality, region, etc - to interact with and depend on each other on a regular basis. On a class basis. This interaction would never occur on a regular basis in precapitalist modes of production. That is why Marxism centers the class struggle as the fundamental driver of historical progress, especially under the capitalist system. And, as far as I am aware, personal social interaction is the most effective eradicator of prejudice. As Western labor history has proven, the labor movement's class struggle does not necessarily eradicate these prejudices...but it is only by the class struggle that the true culmination of these liberation struggles can be achieved. This is precisely the "limitations of trade union consciousness" that Lenin wrote about. This is the fundamental difference between Marxism and liberalism. This is why we must be communists.
This is what happens when you decouple the concept of class from its social dimension, you end up developing 101 blind spots and butchering Marx in the process
On one hand talking about the dialectics of class struggle while simultaneously asserting that said struggle hasn't fundamentally changed since Marx published his original writings, you do realize history is an ongoing process and not a static 19th century stage-play between workers, the King, the foreman, and the industrialist, this is the most un-Marxian analysis of class struggle I've heard in a while
It forces people of wildly disparate backgrounds - race, gender, sexuality, region, etc - to interact with and depend on each other on a regular basis. On a class basis. This interaction would never occur on a regular basis in precapitalist modes of production
I really want to know what your conception of precapitalist modes of production looked like, cause that is an astounding sentence
As Western labor history has proven, the labor movement’s class struggle does not necessarily eradicate these prejudices
Oh thank god, you've finally discovered the social dimension of class.......
but it is only by the class struggle that the true culmination of these liberation struggles can be achieved
.................aand you lost it, (Matt Christman voice) JESUS CHRIST YOU JUST REFUTED YOUR PREVIOUS POINT IN THE SAME FUCKING SENTENCE!
This is precisely the “limitations of trade union consciousness” that Lenin wrote about
Bruh he was literally talking about you
I swear to god these kids man, I'm reverting back into a Left-com over these takes, I haven't been this peeved since I had to explain the Marxian conception of price signals to PK's dumbass
What are you trying to fucking say? This is what I meant by "insistently gesturing at something while failing to explain what that thing is". You keep alluding to this fundamental shift in relations of production that allegedly makes Marx obsolete and the Marxist class struggle relegated to the dustbin of the 19th century. But you fail to actually explain what this shift entails, and why it relegates my oh-so-lacking interpretation entirely wrong and obsolete.
Yes there have been shifts in the relations of production. Yes Marx failed to anticipate certain developments he could never have possibly anticipated. But this is not a fundamental shift in the relations of production as Marx originally described. Labor is still exploited, all that is solid is still melted into air and reduced to a class relation. The shift - the neoliberal social engineering project - has merely rendered collective action more difficult on a practical level and more unthinkable on a psychological level in the Orwellian sense of the word. Yes, we are pringles in tubes. But this does not fundamentally alter the nature of exploitation of labor and socialization of production. It merely obscures it more effectively, renders conscientiousness more difficult. It has never fundamentally changed the class struggle at hand.
That my colleagues travel increasingly farther distances to commute; live in neighborhoods far, far away from my own and interact with me on a far lesser basis; have difficulty communicating outside of relations to media spectacle and social media; this does NOT fundamentally change the fact that we come to the same place to work, divide our labor between each other to accomplish a particular task, and interact with each other on a regular basis. It makes organization harder, but it does not fundamentally change our common class relation and lived experience.
These same people who nod their heads in agreement when I spout explicit Marxist rhetoric will also say some of the most vile homophobic shit I've ever heard the next hour. Do I push back against this? Of course. Does this mean I consider organizing them impossible and therefore cancelled? Absolutely not. Is it "class reductionism" to center class in my appeals to them? Fuck no. This is how I fucking break down their barriers of prejudice. It's how I open them to alternatives to views that have been entrenched by decades of institutional indoctrination. That's not "class reductionism", that's probing weak spots in a fucking wall.
Never said Marx was obsolete, quite the opposite, I said your conception of class (and by extension Marx) is wrong, which is why you keep running into these deadend takes, when it comes to class you ignore its social dimensions, you ignore its historical dimensions and then posit a static version of class struggle bereft of the developmentism inherent in Marxism
It's cherry-picking designed to minimize the social aspect of the class struggle which are the defining aspects of our time
I am literally talking about the social dimensions of class struggle throughtout
To be more direct, stop gesturing insistently at something hidden under a tarp, and show what's under the tarp. You are continuously claiming that I am missing or misinterpreting some crucial context - such as the "social dimension of class struggle". Yet, despite my apparent inability to grasp this oh-so-sacred concept, you are not deigning to actually explain what this is in our patented condescending fashion, and how it departs from what I am saying.
I'm not infallible. I am not black. I am not female. I am not homosexual or transgender. Perhaps I am indeed missing some crucial context, context that is not readily evident in theory but much more so in lived experience. Please enlighten me. I insist.
stop gesturing insistently at something hidden under a tarp, and show what’s under the tarp
What fucking "tarp" it's literally as simple as getting a coherent definition of class instead of your weird mechanistic version of it, FIX your fundamentals and everything else will follow, I guarantee it Marx will start making a lot more sense to you when you recognize the role sociology plays in class dynamics
you are not deigning to actually explain what this is in our patented condescending fashion, and how it departs from what I am saying.
The fact you would tolerate racism and homophobia within your hypothetical working class coalition IS YOU dismissing the social dimension of class out of hand, that shit would never fly in the real world, the minute a minority member encounters that bigotry is the moment your movement is shot, to entertain the idea that anything other than that outcome would be likely, is idealism of the highest order and all you have to offer to counter that alienation of a large segment of the working class is "get the fuck over it"
Bruh we tried that shit during the second international it was a fuckin disaster, good luck duplicating that stellar success
I suggest reading up on your US labor history. The white working class was almost always willing to exclude black workers to advance their own status in society. They chose racial solidarity over working class solidarity.
I read plenty about US labor history. That's not class reductionism, that's literally the opposite of class reductionism. That's race being used by the bourgeoisie, by racists, and by liberals to divide the working class and pit them against each other. That's literally an example of why connections MUST be made between race and class, why class unites everyone of all races, why those of all races and creeds share a common struggle because of class.
I read plenty about US labor history. That’s not class reductionism, that’s literally the opposite of class reductionism. That’s race being used by the bourgeoisie, by racists, and by liberals to divide the working class and pit them against each other. That’s literally an example of why connections MUST be made between race and class, why class unites everyone of all races, why those of all races and creeds share a common struggle because of class.
100% agree. Class unites everyone. There is a reason liberals in western countries push ID-POL so hard. It divides the left into so many subgroups and it pits us all against each other with infighting over who has it worse. In the end, the left don't accomplish anything cause they're too busy cannibalizing each other with infighting (which is the goal!). On the flip side, the far right unites and grows.
This is precisely why I don't believe we'll ever see a revolution in the US, or UK and Canada for that matter. The real left (as in M-Ls or anything that could be revolutionary) is too small to take on the task of a vanguard party rising to prominence. Liberal identity politics has done it's job dividing up the left into all these subgroups and pitting us against one another with infighting. While that happens, the far right has been organizing for decades and they'll be ready when shit hits the fan and we approach collapse in the following years. There isn't going to be a vanguard cause the left is so small here.
This sub is proof why I have no hope in a revolution. "Talk to libs, go radicalize libs!" People here are so scared to talk to actual working class people cause they've bought into the liberal propaganda BS about how the "white working class" all voted for Trump or are right wingers, despite the glaring evidence through years that people of low income usually don't vote at all and are disillusioned by the system. We are to a point now where capitalism has reached such insane levels of exploitation that the divide between rich and poor has never been greater, but who cares about that? Radicalizing libs is more important according to many on here.
There is a difference between liberal idpol and instersectional liberation struggles. And /r/stupidpol isn't full of "class reductionists" but closet reactionaries who prefer the aesthetics of the left and pretend accordingly on the fucking internet.
"Class reductionists" in real life (as opposed to fringe internet communities full of morons) are just Marxists or proletarians who unfortunately might have some shitty, bigoted opinions on certain issues. And I'm sorry but in order to have an even remotely effective communist or labor movement IRL you're going to have to accept that you will inevitably encounter quite a few of those people within the movement and have to co-exist with them.
The whole fucking point of the Marxist structural criticism of society as one of class struggle is that capitalism melts all that is solid into air and material relations between people DO get reduced to common class struggle. Gay and straight have vastly different preferences. Black and white have vastly different experiences. Women face institutional discrimination that men don't. But the thing that all share in common is a CLASS STATUS. Gay or straight, black or white, male or female, ALL ARE WORKERS. And conversely, this also means that you can be a gay billionaire, or a female billionaire, or a black billionaire, but you are still one of the bourgeoisie and your actions are driven by a class interest. This is precisely the distinction between liberal idpol and leftist liberation struggles. When Morgan Freeman denounces structural impediments to black advancement in bourgeois society as "Bullshit. Anyone can do it (just look at me)." he is reinforcing a white supremacist social structure by invoking black exceptionalism - because he has survived and succeeded against all odds in his occupation, this somehow proves there is no institutional discrimination. When military-industrial complex defense juggernaughts appoint a majority of women CEOs, this is lauded as an accomplishment for feminism by the media, and this serves the purpose of reinforcing a class dictatorship by invoking a myth of liberal meritocracy. When a billionaire comes out as gay, we get a million think pieces about what a landmark this is, but it's reinforcing prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals by again invoking the exceptionalism that reinforcing the myth of liberal meritocracy. The advancement of oppressed minorities into the ranks of the bourgeoisie is not a victory for liberation of the oppressed, but a means of reinforcing the class dictatorship. The only way for true liberation of oppressed minorities such as women, homosexuals, and African-Americans is through the class dictatorship of the proletariat, and that is only achieved through the class struggle. While this does not guarantee the liberation of these minorities (looking at you, actually existing communist countries) is forms the foundations necessary for the actual liberation of those minorities.
While it is unfortunate that plenty of Marxists, self-proclaimed "socialists", and proletarians do not fully comprehend the intersection of these liberation struggles with the class struggle, this does not conjure "class reductionism" into real existence.
Yeah no, that shit ain't gonna fly, and if you try to make it fly you're gonna be in for a hell of shock when your ahistorical and incoherent conception of class falls apart in the face of actual existing social dynamics
That's the problem with class reductionists, you describe a set of conditions that YOU WANT to exist, not the conditions that ACTUALLY exist, you discount the role of identity formation and cultural hegemony and then wonder why your class overtures fall flat in the face of liberal media narratives, it's the leftoid version of "why do they vote against their interests???"
You don't seem to understand that it isn't sufficient to just point out how hypocritical the liberals are in their cynical usage of idpol, but to offer an alternative to those narratives, instead you offer denial and demands of conformity and uniformity, "Just get along with your racist coworkers because it'll work out for you in the end" this is fuckin idiocy, we don't work in the 19th century factory anymore, imagine trying to implement this strategy in the service dominated economy of today, see how far your coalition building goes with this rhetoric
It's interesting, in the first sentence you claim to recognize the difference between liberal idpol and intersectional liberation struggles, yet I see no evidence of this recognition in the rest of your comment
I'll preface this by noting that the tone of this post is very blunt and to the point, and it's not intended to vicious or hostile but just...neutral. Frank observation. I feel I need to clarify this in advance.
You know what, fuck it, I'll post my response to this, even though it's largely reflexive anger to a "controversial" statement that gestures insistently at something and then doesn't indicate what that thing is.
"We are not enemies, we may be different based on race, gender, sexuality, and so but we all share a common class relation, a common lived experience as a working person. I have more in common with you, a black/female/homosexual colleague, than I do with any white male cishet billionaire. These petty divides are exactly how the ruling class - the real enemy to all of us - keep us divided, atomized, competing against and despising each other. That capitalism forcibly socializes our production, forces us, a disparate group of individuals from wildly different backgrounds, to come together as one entity and combine our labor in order to accomplish the needs of mass production. This makes us the revolutionary force that drives history. We are organized in such a fashion that the means of production are literally operated by our hands while being owned by others - we merely need to take that power into our hands in order to fundamentally change society!"
This is literally the alternative pitch to liberal idpol. The is the dialectic of class struggle. And it has never fundamentally changed even since Marx published his original writings. This is the alternative to "More :clap: female/black/gay :clap: war criminals!" And it requires the emphasis on class, the connection of intersecting liberation struggles for oppressed minorities such as women, racial minorities, and LGBT people. Class is the one force that unites that centrifugal demographics that can otherwise be easily turned against each other.
Prejudice arises not as a personal moral failing, but as a lack of understanding and social interaction resulting from discriminatory and prejudiced social structures. Capitalism reduces the material relation of production to that of working class and owning class. It forces people of wildly disparate backgrounds - race, gender, sexuality, region, etc - to interact with and depend on each other on a regular basis. On a class basis. This interaction would never occur on a regular basis in precapitalist modes of production. That is why Marxism centers the class struggle as the fundamental driver of historical progress, especially under the capitalist system. And, as far as I am aware, personal social interaction is the most effective eradicator of prejudice. As Western labor history has proven, the labor movement's class struggle does not necessarily eradicate these prejudices...but it is only by the class struggle that the true culmination of these liberation struggles can be achieved. This is precisely the "limitations of trade union consciousness" that Lenin wrote about. This is the fundamental difference between Marxism and liberalism. This is why we must be communists.
This is what happens when you decouple the concept of class from its social dimension, you end up developing 101 blind spots and butchering Marx in the process
On one hand talking about the dialectics of class struggle while simultaneously asserting that said struggle hasn't fundamentally changed since Marx published his original writings, you do realize history is an ongoing process and not a static 19th century stage-play between workers, the King, the foreman, and the industrialist, this is the most un-Marxian analysis of class struggle I've heard in a while
I really want to know what your conception of precapitalist modes of production looked like, cause that is an astounding sentence
Oh thank god, you've finally discovered the social dimension of class.......
.................aand you lost it, (Matt Christman voice) JESUS CHRIST YOU JUST REFUTED YOUR PREVIOUS POINT IN THE SAME FUCKING SENTENCE!
Bruh he was literally talking about you
I swear to god these kids man, I'm reverting back into a Left-com over these takes, I haven't been this peeved since I had to explain the Marxian conception of price signals to PK's dumbass
What are you trying to fucking say? This is what I meant by "insistently gesturing at something while failing to explain what that thing is". You keep alluding to this fundamental shift in relations of production that allegedly makes Marx obsolete and the Marxist class struggle relegated to the dustbin of the 19th century. But you fail to actually explain what this shift entails, and why it relegates my oh-so-lacking interpretation entirely wrong and obsolete.
Yes there have been shifts in the relations of production. Yes Marx failed to anticipate certain developments he could never have possibly anticipated. But this is not a fundamental shift in the relations of production as Marx originally described. Labor is still exploited, all that is solid is still melted into air and reduced to a class relation. The shift - the neoliberal social engineering project - has merely rendered collective action more difficult on a practical level and more unthinkable on a psychological level in the Orwellian sense of the word. Yes, we are pringles in tubes. But this does not fundamentally alter the nature of exploitation of labor and socialization of production. It merely obscures it more effectively, renders conscientiousness more difficult. It has never fundamentally changed the class struggle at hand.
That my colleagues travel increasingly farther distances to commute; live in neighborhoods far, far away from my own and interact with me on a far lesser basis; have difficulty communicating outside of relations to media spectacle and social media; this does NOT fundamentally change the fact that we come to the same place to work, divide our labor between each other to accomplish a particular task, and interact with each other on a regular basis. It makes organization harder, but it does not fundamentally change our common class relation and lived experience.
These same people who nod their heads in agreement when I spout explicit Marxist rhetoric will also say some of the most vile homophobic shit I've ever heard the next hour. Do I push back against this? Of course. Does this mean I consider organizing them impossible and therefore cancelled? Absolutely not. Is it "class reductionism" to center class in my appeals to them? Fuck no. This is how I fucking break down their barriers of prejudice. It's how I open them to alternatives to views that have been entrenched by decades of institutional indoctrination. That's not "class reductionism", that's probing weak spots in a fucking wall.
Never said Marx was obsolete, quite the opposite, I said your conception of class (and by extension Marx) is wrong, which is why you keep running into these deadend takes, when it comes to class you ignore its social dimensions, you ignore its historical dimensions and then posit a static version of class struggle bereft of the developmentism inherent in Marxism
It's cherry-picking designed to minimize the social aspect of the class struggle which are the defining aspects of our time
I am literally talking about the social dimensions of class struggle throughtout
To be more direct, stop gesturing insistently at something hidden under a tarp, and show what's under the tarp. You are continuously claiming that I am missing or misinterpreting some crucial context - such as the "social dimension of class struggle". Yet, despite my apparent inability to grasp this oh-so-sacred concept, you are not deigning to actually explain what this is in our patented condescending fashion, and how it departs from what I am saying.
I'm not infallible. I am not black. I am not female. I am not homosexual or transgender. Perhaps I am indeed missing some crucial context, context that is not readily evident in theory but much more so in lived experience. Please enlighten me. I insist.
What fucking "tarp" it's literally as simple as getting a coherent definition of class instead of your weird mechanistic version of it, FIX your fundamentals and everything else will follow, I guarantee it Marx will start making a lot more sense to you when you recognize the role sociology plays in class dynamics
The fact you would tolerate racism and homophobia within your hypothetical working class coalition IS YOU dismissing the social dimension of class out of hand, that shit would never fly in the real world, the minute a minority member encounters that bigotry is the moment your movement is shot, to entertain the idea that anything other than that outcome would be likely, is idealism of the highest order and all you have to offer to counter that alienation of a large segment of the working class is "get the fuck over it"
Bruh we tried that shit during the second international it was a fuckin disaster, good luck duplicating that stellar success
I suggest reading up on your US labor history. The white working class was almost always willing to exclude black workers to advance their own status in society. They chose racial solidarity over working class solidarity.
I read plenty about US labor history. That's not class reductionism, that's literally the opposite of class reductionism. That's race being used by the bourgeoisie, by racists, and by liberals to divide the working class and pit them against each other. That's literally an example of why connections MUST be made between race and class, why class unites everyone of all races, why those of all races and creeds share a common struggle because of class.
100% agree. Class unites everyone. There is a reason liberals in western countries push ID-POL so hard. It divides the left into so many subgroups and it pits us all against each other with infighting over who has it worse. In the end, the left don't accomplish anything cause they're too busy cannibalizing each other with infighting (which is the goal!). On the flip side, the far right unites and grows.
This is precisely why I don't believe we'll ever see a revolution in the US, or UK and Canada for that matter. The real left (as in M-Ls or anything that could be revolutionary) is too small to take on the task of a vanguard party rising to prominence. Liberal identity politics has done it's job dividing up the left into all these subgroups and pitting us against one another with infighting. While that happens, the far right has been organizing for decades and they'll be ready when shit hits the fan and we approach collapse in the following years. There isn't going to be a vanguard cause the left is so small here.
This sub is proof why I have no hope in a revolution. "Talk to libs, go radicalize libs!" People here are so scared to talk to actual working class people cause they've bought into the liberal propaganda BS about how the "white working class" all voted for Trump or are right wingers, despite the glaring evidence through years that people of low income usually don't vote at all and are disillusioned by the system. We are to a point now where capitalism has reached such insane levels of exploitation that the divide between rich and poor has never been greater, but who cares about that? Radicalizing libs is more important according to many on here.