18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)
History
369 readers
2 users here now
This is the general history subcom. Anything relating to history is welcome here. Doesn't have to be Marxist, though it certainly can be. So join in on the discussion and let's learn more.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Sharing content from a media outlet does not mean we condone everything that said media outlet does or stands for. There is a lot that is problematic about the Grayzone, but we also have to acknowledge that they do objectively good work at times. I would prefer that we judge article by article. If an article is bad don't share it. If it's good and contains valuable reporting, then i think it's ok. It's also ok to add disclaimers and warnings when we do so that certain outlets may have these problematic, reactionary views. This is how we engage with media critically.
I agree to a point. Honestly though, I would rather not give them too much attention and traction. I just worry: what happens if their more reactionary ideas come into vogue through looking the other way every time they say one thing that's correct every now and then? Well, maybe it's not that bad, I suppose.
But I really wish leftists would stop platforming people and act like they have NO problems with the character or content of the other person, even when they are problematic. I mean, the Irish Maoist influencer Paul Morrin (the person behind Marxism Today) did this constantly and then other leftist content creators do the same thing with him (like Hakim and Second Thought).
Putting on a smiling face with somebody that hates AES countries or stans Indigenous genocider Gonzalo isn't having a discussion and exchanging ideas; its acting.
Well, that's where I am coming from anyway, but I don't mind the above, I think; just have a few reservations, is all.
Honestly this is a bit too much purity testing for me. Person A platforms problematic person X, okay, criticism warranted. But is person B also guilty because they platformed person A? ...If so, where does it end? How many degrees of separation before you no longer assign guilt by association. Have you heard of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game?
I fully agree that we shouldn't tolerate reactionary views in leftist spaces, but there is such a thing as critical media consumption. We cannot shut ourselves in a bubble. If i were to only listen to people i agree with 100% i would probably only be listening to myself. There are takes i don't agree with and find highly problematic in a lot of leftists, even some of the most progressive ones.
Take for instance the Ukraine conflict. A lot of leftist media figures who are very good on issues like Palestine, decolonization, anti-capitalism, etc., perhaps even on China, can still have wrong (in my opinion) takes on Russia's SMO and do not recognize its anti-fascist character. Because they are misinformed or because they have certain biases. But it is still valuable to listen to many of these people for their other correct takes.
I... get that.
My issue is that ideas or positions that are contradictory to each other are accepted and not really rebuffed; it would be nice, frankly, if they argued or discussed their disagreements more often and frankly and openly.
Instead, we leave the hard questions for later or... never.
Primary and secondary contradictions, etc. etc. Is this the absolutely correct approach? I don't know. All i know is we have limited time and energy to spend in a day and we have to prioritize. We have to triage and address the most pressing issues first.
I certainly agree with that, regarding primary and secondary contradictions. Perhaps you're right.