Resistance to genocide includes celebrating the cultures that are being wiped out and not just focusing on trauma porn.

A culture is more than just words, a culture is many disparate things that form a whole, which is then passed on from generation to generation.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this idea (perhaps rightly so, nationalism is icky) but I *genuinely* believe that, if leftist talking points were reframed as a "continuation of the projects of freedom, equality and justice" and other "American values," a lot of otherwise reluctant people could be sheparded into more leftist viewpoints. Rhetoric matters, folks

Of course, there's a conversation to be had about whether you want "good leftists" or more leftists, but idk, I think you slip into vanguardism really quickly that way

Elaborating on this, an important part of rhetoric is "speaking on people's terms." Language, of course, influences how people think about things, and if you don't address people in the political language they want/are accustomed to hearing, you're gonna have a hard time

We've been cultured into these ideas of class consciousness and all that, but are those the terms the average American is thinking about politics in?

Tl;dr, most Americans don't speak the language of leftism, and while they're certainly capable of understanding it, we're only making more work for ourselves by not speaking in terms Americans typically understand politics in

I think it's really easy for people to get frustrated with the theater and strategy of politics when they don't realize it's theater and strategy.

Politicans aren't stupid. Politicans, Republicans in particular, have a ridiculous amount of resources at their disposal for taking the pulse of Americans and shaping their language to get the maximum amount of effect. Leftists are often very stubborn about adopting this kind of strategies, but the leftist groups that get the most done are people who debate for a decade, can concede certain victories if it's in the best interests of the long run, and who are getting shit done at the interpersonal, grassroots level.

I would say this frustrates me when I see Democrats act the way they do, but it actually honestly doesn't enrage me most of time time. At this point, I can look at what I perceive as incompetence, label it as theater, and go back to something more grassroots. The fuckery of geopolitics is easier to deal with when you have an issue in your backyard that you can invest time and energy in.

That said, adopting conservative *buzzwords* is NOT a good idea, because that often reinforces the meaning of those words on a psychological level. It might be REALLY tempting to whip out a smug "facts don't care about your feelings," but it's not a great idea.

Another added nuance - being strategic doesn't mean being giving into politeness, purity politics, or being an assimilationist. Rage, aggression, and shock all have their place in activism.

But here's what I would have most leftists ask themselves: Am I acting this way because I want to feel smart, because I'm frustrated, or because I think I am actually making a good point?

I had to learn this, but talking about how much you hate America and think it should fall is not going to land well with most people. It does not mean "most people" are dumb, unenlightened, or incapable of understanding what you say. But using aggressive language requires some flair and strategy.

Ah, thought of something else:

There's a subset of leftists who are REALLY obsessed with language, and a subset of leftists who call what the other group does "PC" and "Identity politics."

Now, the other group does tend to focus on the morality and correctness of the language they use, but do you know how much time politicans and their advisors and speechwriters spend on the specific words they use? It's not a futile pursuit to analyze the impacts of language we use.

That said, while we spend a lot of time arguing about words, we don't spend a lot of time on when and where and why certain words might be strategic, or not.

Are we meeting people where they're at, or where we think they should be?

Here's an example:

In this channel, and when I talk to other environmentalists and/or leftists, I might talk about the false dichotomy of "natural" and "artificial." This is something I can discuss and explain at great length because I am working under the assumption that the people I am speaking to have a greater understanding of "natural" to begin with, even of they are using the language I am criticizing. Their scope of how the word "natural" might have historical, cultural, and social influences is much larger. It becomes more important in discourse about the "naturalness" of national parks, gardens, products, and so on and so forth.

But let's say I'm talking to an average person who might not understand why their monoculture lawn is a problem, and wants to know why. I am not doing them any favors by parsing the nuances of "artificial" and "natural," it is sufficient to communicate the benefits of a "natural landscape" because they probably have an idea of what that means in the context of the lawn they have - and I don't need to assume they think their lawn is "natural."

Now, if I do this, I DO run the risk of another environmentalist calling me a hypocrite for using a word I have actively criticized. I can explain that its neccessary strategically, but this is also just an acceptable risk in politics. I genuinely think that a lot of Democrats and "liberal" personalities are probably a lot further left than they let on, but they HAVE to meet the American public where they're at, and they know leftists are going to criticize what they say and what they do.

Which is a good thing, we should never stop criticizing democrats, but it's worth thinking about why Democrats don't really take leftist critique seriously, and it probably speaks to our lack of strategy and organization.