I think the overall problem is that we often highlight the good actions of fascists, and highlight the mistakes of the American soft left

You think this framework would be easy to follow but I keep running into people who believe if you say something is bad that means you're trying to say that the person is bad, where if you say something is good then that means you're trying to say the person is good.

And, obviously, all moral criticism is then directed at the immutable essence of the human soul which we all know is either good or bad ontologically. And anyone you like is a reflection of your own soul, which is ontologically and inherently good or bad.

That's not everyone obviously but it's enough people to be too many and it drives me nuts imo.

This isn't bad, but you need some way to predict what people will do in the future. Will the stick by what they said they'll do, or backtrack when it comes time to take action? If something new comes up, or some background issue springs to the foreground, how will they respond?

This is unironically the Hasan position. Whenever zohran wins, it makes our life easier. When he does dumb shit we critique. We win either way, but he's much more useful than a reactionary because in his successes we can point to evidence for the kind of world we want to make.

P.S. he makes reactionaries furious, which is a fun bonus as a treat.

Link me to a single post on here where someone unironically praises those two and "drags" Mamdani. Give me a username. Anything.

It doesn't exist. Not a single comment in that 100+ comment thread has anything that can even be remotely construed as being "critical support for Tucker Carlson."

Next time I see it I'll tag you if I can remember I guess. I'm not so criminally online that I chase and harass other users on the site like some folks here do

Unfortunately I think those people are serious and it's a big problem