I think playing defense here would be defending “globalize the intifada”. It… isn’t really an actionable phrase. It has nothing to do with their platform.
i completely disagree tactically. never play defense
This only works when you have leverage. The only leverage he as is that he won the primary and could win the general. Bravado is downstream from acquiring power.
And what if people want to see someone standing for something with rigour? What many are claiming is that the “bravado” about really held positions is how you win. I don’t always agree with that, but here I do. And losing while maintaining your positions is more likely to move more people left. Giving in and then losing is disastrous for the left. It’s why it’s a strategic failure, I think, to have not held his position strongly
I think people want material change more than rhetoric. The part of his platform that matters is the whole thing outside of foreign policy. His platform would materially help Palestinians in NYC more than shouting “globalize the intifada” in Cuomo’s face would help them spiritually. It would be very entertaining for us but I don’t think that’s helpful. They’re going to keep bringing it up because the only reason to bring foreign policy into a mayoral race is to attack. If he refuses to back down and gets right back in their face, it makes it very easy to draw attention away from his platform and attack him. If he simply lets it roll off his back, addresses the questions as personal attacks, and refocuses on his platform, that will go further. He’s already won an primary without having to make it all about foreign policy. If he won on his platform before, he can do it again because that means those people are focused on something other than this.
However, neither confronting it or letting it be helped Corbyn so we might just be at the mercy of something more than rhetoric.
I just disagree entirely about it making anything more difficult at all to hold his position. It’s easy to relate it to material positions that he holds through small rhetorical tricks and then he will be doing both good through rhetoric and through his material policies. For New York his material policies are important, but everyone knows he’s more than that at this moment. And he’s giving that up too easily. Now his failure is a strategic loss instead of also being a possible strategic step forward. And his winning is less of a strategic win than if he’d told them to fuck off.
Het didn’t even have to say the word intifada, just ignore it as a stupid attack and reiterate that he supports 1 state of equal rights in historic Palestine/current Israel.
Disagree on Corbyn, he gave in immediately and constantly, trying to appease the Zionist cries for investigations instead of dismissing them. (He could’ve done a real check that there weren’t tons of real anti-Semitism without the rhetorical loss he gave immediately)
Yeah we’re just going to keep going around on this. I’m just not going along with the idea that the only way he can win the general is to tie the governance of Israel to material conditions in NYC. Besides, it’s an unfalsifiable position. If he loses it’s because he didn’t support Palestine hard enough. If he wins it proves that his capitulation bought him favor with the kingmaker Zionists and he’s working for them.
I didn’t say it was the only way to win the election, I said it’s the way that his success or loss can matter most for a broader movement.
It seems I’m arguing why rhetoric can have material impact, and you’re arguing that the rhetoric will be blamed afterwards. The unfalsifiability is exactly why it’ll be used like that for or against a broader left movement whether you want it to or not, so might as well play your hand well
Yeah but whether or not his win ties into a broader movement requires people outside of NYC to pitch in rather than sit and wait for him/his team to do it all. If he wins and everyone outside of NY decides that they don’t like electoralism and that he’s a sellout, then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. He will be weaker alone and have to make concessions to do stuff. If there is national support for it as a project, then it’ll be easier for him to be successful. That will make it easier for it to happen elsewhere. It creates a cycle.
Why does that disagree with me? To be a national movement with any power, it can’t do these simple rhetorical concessions for nothing. It’s a terrible strategy if that’s the goal. People want someone representing the popular opinion of leftists about Israel, not someone willing to concede when pushed hard enough. That’s how you lose that cycle
i completely disagree tactically. never play defense. Zohran’s strength is that he offers positive things.
it’s also empanada’s second channel so really nobody should be watching it or taking it seriously but we came from the chapo subreddit so whatever.
I think playing defense here would be defending “globalize the intifada”. It… isn’t really an actionable phrase. It has nothing to do with their platform.
This only works when you have leverage. The only leverage he as is that he won the primary and could win the general. Bravado is downstream from acquiring power.
And what if people want to see someone standing for something with rigour? What many are claiming is that the “bravado” about really held positions is how you win. I don’t always agree with that, but here I do. And losing while maintaining your positions is more likely to move more people left. Giving in and then losing is disastrous for the left. It’s why it’s a strategic failure, I think, to have not held his position strongly
I think people want material change more than rhetoric. The part of his platform that matters is the whole thing outside of foreign policy. His platform would materially help Palestinians in NYC more than shouting “globalize the intifada” in Cuomo’s face would help them spiritually. It would be very entertaining for us but I don’t think that’s helpful. They’re going to keep bringing it up because the only reason to bring foreign policy into a mayoral race is to attack. If he refuses to back down and gets right back in their face, it makes it very easy to draw attention away from his platform and attack him. If he simply lets it roll off his back, addresses the questions as personal attacks, and refocuses on his platform, that will go further. He’s already won an primary without having to make it all about foreign policy. If he won on his platform before, he can do it again because that means those people are focused on something other than this.
However, neither confronting it or letting it be helped Corbyn so we might just be at the mercy of something more than rhetoric.
I just disagree entirely about it making anything more difficult at all to hold his position. It’s easy to relate it to material positions that he holds through small rhetorical tricks and then he will be doing both good through rhetoric and through his material policies. For New York his material policies are important, but everyone knows he’s more than that at this moment. And he’s giving that up too easily. Now his failure is a strategic loss instead of also being a possible strategic step forward. And his winning is less of a strategic win than if he’d told them to fuck off.
Het didn’t even have to say the word intifada, just ignore it as a stupid attack and reiterate that he supports 1 state of equal rights in historic Palestine/current Israel.
Disagree on Corbyn, he gave in immediately and constantly, trying to appease the Zionist cries for investigations instead of dismissing them. (He could’ve done a real check that there weren’t tons of real anti-Semitism without the rhetorical loss he gave immediately)
Yeah we’re just going to keep going around on this. I’m just not going along with the idea that the only way he can win the general is to tie the governance of Israel to material conditions in NYC. Besides, it’s an unfalsifiable position. If he loses it’s because he didn’t support Palestine hard enough. If he wins it proves that his capitulation bought him favor with the kingmaker Zionists and he’s working for them.
I didn’t say it was the only way to win the election, I said it’s the way that his success or loss can matter most for a broader movement.
It seems I’m arguing why rhetoric can have material impact, and you’re arguing that the rhetoric will be blamed afterwards. The unfalsifiability is exactly why it’ll be used like that for or against a broader left movement whether you want it to or not, so might as well play your hand well
Yeah but whether or not his win ties into a broader movement requires people outside of NYC to pitch in rather than sit and wait for him/his team to do it all. If he wins and everyone outside of NY decides that they don’t like electoralism and that he’s a sellout, then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. He will be weaker alone and have to make concessions to do stuff. If there is national support for it as a project, then it’ll be easier for him to be successful. That will make it easier for it to happen elsewhere. It creates a cycle.
Why does that disagree with me? To be a national movement with any power, it can’t do these simple rhetorical concessions for nothing. It’s a terrible strategy if that’s the goal. People want someone representing the popular opinion of leftists about Israel, not someone willing to concede when pushed hard enough. That’s how you lose that cycle