...is three minutes into the conversation they always wig about the "angry" left, the "extreme" left, the "radical" left. When they are cutting off the conversation like that, how do you make them see that the anger and extremism is being created by cutting off people's access to basic resources for survival? There are also a lot of stereotypes about "nothing ever getting done" when the left is in the room...but there is no consideration that this might be because the (extreme) right won't allow any "give backs" of the "take aways" that have happened over the years, much less allow new programs and infrastructure to be built on the "Left" side of the realm of ideas.
The "Left" has been invalidated a priori in their minds, before they even go into the room. Moreover, since they have all the power and resources, if they are even spoken to in a non-deferential way, they can just take their ball and go home. In fact that is what they are doing each time on some Internet forum some Very Important Person throws a hissy fit over anonymous people being able to get away with discourtesy. They want everyone to be identified because they are used to their status implying deference - and to keep people groveling, there needs to be inequality.
Anyway, I'm tired of hearing about what is wrong with the Abstract Left, because the truth is that the people with the power to do something to help the people who are on the Left for the political reason that this is the side that stands up for people with no access to livelihood or resources have an extremely selfish motivation for fault-finding with the "other" political side, and their hyperbole usually falls apart when they are forced to look at the actual people they are making abstract claims about.
= new reply since forum marked as read