10 votes

Meet the anti-woke left: ‘Dirtbag’ leftists Amber A’Lee Frost and Anna Khachiyan on populism, feminism and cancel culture.

34 comments

  1. [7]
    A_Little_Star Link
    This article has a few valid points but to me their explanations in the article and little quips like polyamory, pansexuality and nerd culture being synonymous to loving games and rules seem...

    This article has a few valid points but to me their explanations in the article and little quips like polyamory, pansexuality and nerd culture being synonymous to loving games and rules seem really sophomoric to me; it sorta reads like a 20 year old college student who feels they have it all figured out and now looks down on people who fit mainstream narratives except here mainstream is pc culture and women's rights...

    22 votes
    1. Litmus2336 Link Parent
      It's the standard "everything is a reaction to something else" syndrome. A bunch of annoying people in Portland who happen to be Poly post about how being monogamous is dumb and now we have the...

      It's the standard "everything is a reaction to something else" syndrome. A bunch of annoying people in Portland who happen to be Poly post about how being monogamous is dumb and now we have the "dirt bag left" here to defend us from attacks on monogamy.

      Same with idpol being taken too far at expense of actually helping vulnerable people. Now people declare "idpol is the enemy and never did anything good".

      It sometimes seems like every political opinion nowadays is a knee jerk reaction to something else.

      7 votes
    2. [2]
      NaraVara Link Parent
      Some of these Marxists would 100% be hyper-conservative Republicans if they grew up in the South. The only reason they’re “leftist” is because they’re in Brooklyn, but the hate all the same people...

      Some of these Marxists would 100% be hyper-conservative Republicans if they grew up in the South. The only reason they’re “leftist” is because they’re in Brooklyn, but the hate all the same people as the MAGA bunch.

      4 votes
      1. frozenplums Link Parent
        Amber grew up in rural Indiana in a religious household

        Amber grew up in rural Indiana in a religious household

    3. Dogyote Link Parent
      Do you really think they're looking down on being PC and women's rights? I think you're being deliberately hyperbolic. They're criticizing the methods, not the ideas.

      Do you really think they're looking down on being PC and women's rights? I think you're being deliberately hyperbolic. They're criticizing the methods, not the ideas.

      3 votes
    4. [2]
      Eva Link Parent
      It's fun, though, and that's what matters—they're constructed/fake issues (pansexuality is bisexuality for people with a persecution complex, polyamory is southern degeneracy culture co-opted by...

      It's fun, though, and that's what matters—they're constructed/fake issues (pansexuality is bisexuality for people with a persecution complex, polyamory is southern degeneracy culture co-opted by leftists and Bayesian racists), so making fun of them and insulting the people who push them is a good thing to do.

      3 votes
      1. edward (edited ) Link Parent
        What? Who is out there saying they are being persecuted in a way that they wouldn't be if they were just bi? The difference between pan and bi isn't exactly set in stone, but the one I've seen...

        pansexuality is bisexuality for people with a persecution complex

        What? Who is out there saying they are being persecuted in a way that they wouldn't be if they were just bi?

        The difference between pan and bi isn't exactly set in stone, but the one I've seen most is whether or not gender has any role in your attraction: pan - gender doesn't matter at all, bi - attracted to all genders, but gender still plays a role.

        Other possible distinctions are about whether you are attracted to nb/genderqueer, or even if you are attracted to trans people. But both of those (distinctions for pan vs bi) are generally rejected by bi people.

        3 votes
  2. [14]
    alyaza Link
    this is an interesting article, although to be perfectly frank with you, amber and anna have a bunch of bad takes takes interspersed throughout here that probably range from merely groanworthy to...

    this is an interesting article, although to be perfectly frank with you, amber and anna have a bunch of bad takes takes interspersed throughout here that probably range from merely groanworthy to actively painful to read, depending on where you stand politically.

    15 votes
    1. Akir Link Parent
      I'll say! Who is against women having traditional relationships, again?

      I'll say!

      ‘I think the women who like it don’t understand why they do… women today aren’t allowed to want a traditional relationship’, she says. Khachiyan adds: ‘Which is what most people since the dawn of time have wanted… There’s nothing reactionary about wanting a boyfriend!’

      Who is against women having traditional relationships, again?

      13 votes
    2. [12]
      mftrhu Link Parent
      You weren't kidding. This article seems to have been written by interviewing an intersection of GenderCritical and some of the more overtly traditionalist/reactionary subs. The exercise of bodily...

      You weren't kidding. This article seems to have been written by interviewing an intersection of GenderCritical and some of the more overtly traditionalist/reactionary subs.

      [...] Lena Dunham was meant to speak, she says, but didn’t show up because ‘she cooked up a fake illness’. ‘It was around the time she had her uterus removed’, she says. Frost adds that lots of American women are ‘voluntary removing their reproductive organs’. ‘Nobody is talking about this. It’s a middle-class, very elite phenomenon, where they’re like, “I have menstrual problems, I’m going to remove my womb”.

      I asked how the seeming frigidity of the #MeToo moment, let alone the alleged epidemic of uterus removals, sits alongside modern feminism’s ‘sex positive’ celebration of polyamory, pansexuality and sex workers. ‘It’s because these people would rather negotiate sex than actually have it… They don’t want to take responsibility’, says Khachiyan. ‘That’s why nerds love this stuff’, says Frost. ‘It’s huge in Silicon Valley. They like games and rules. These are people who consider themselves leftists but probably don’t like anything about socialism except the gulags.’

      Khachiyan says ‘a lot of these people are tyrannical narcissists’. ‘They are noncommittal, incapable of tolerating conflict or taking consequences. So they would rather have a system like polyamory where you kick that can down the road.’ [...]

      The exercise of bodily autonomy is called "a very elite phenomenon" - and, on the face of it, I might agree, because removing one's uterus unfortunately requires a lot of resources - but they talk about it in a very dismissive manner, and go on to put it - together with being pan (???), poly, and #MeToo (???) - under the umbrella of "they just don't want to take responsibility".

      [...] Khachiyan takes a refreshingly liberal line: ‘You should be able to hate and hatred should be protected, as long as it doesn’t spill over into physical violence.’ ‘There’s this idea that we live in a white supremacist country when we fundamentally don’t’, says Khachiyan. She mentions antifa, the self-styled anti-fascist group that, since our conversation, has hit the headlines for beating up a right-leaning journalist in Portland. ‘Antifa have manufactured a threat to have some semblance of an identity’, she says. ‘All these people who say they are anti-fascist don’t know what it means to be persecuted.’

      The "you should be able to say whatever you want" - until it spills to physical violence - and the "antifa are fake, they don't know what oppression is" just smacks of /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM. They call out the tankies as they "probably don’t like anything about socialism except the gulags", but they don't seem much better - class seems to be the only thing that matters to them, and they just dismiss every other issue.

      Modern feminism? It's all about "middle-class women" and "mansplaining", apparently. And is that "wanting a boyfriend is considered reactionary one" a jab at how "the LGBTQWERTY+ movement has gone to far"? Because it really, really looks like one. The "you can tell people I'm trans, even if I'm not, it'd be fun" at the beginning isn't helping, either.

      Meet the anti-woke left

      If they are representative of that, then - thanks, but no, thanks.

      7 votes
      1. bbvnvlt Link Parent
        The disease Dunham suffers from that necessitated this is called endometriosis. It's a condition that many women suffer from with symptoms ranging from super heavy menstrual pains to debilitating...

        Lena Dunham was meant to speak, she says, but didn’t show up because ‘she cooked up a fake illness’. ‘It was around the time she had her uterus removed’, she says. Frost adds that lots of American women are ‘voluntary removing their reproductive organs’. ‘Nobody is talking about this. It’s a middle-class, very elite phenomenon, where they’re like, “I have menstrual problems, I’m going to remove my womb”.

        The disease Dunham suffers from that necessitated this is called endometriosis. It's a condition that many women suffer from with symptoms ranging from super heavy menstrual pains to debilitating growth of cysts, internal scar tissue, fatigue, etc.

        Endometriosis is often diagnosed very late because it is dismissed (by doctors and others) as normal menstrual issues that women shouldn't whine about.

        Not good.

        6 votes
      2. [6]
        SourceContribute Link Parent
        I wrote up a few paragraphs about how calling out 'mansplaining' is only worthwhile if it turns into an additional call for equal pay. But the little part about antifa? Good grief! I'm all for...

        I wrote up a few paragraphs about how calling out 'mansplaining' is only worthwhile if it turns into an additional call for equal pay.

        But the little part about antifa? Good grief! I'm all for focusing on class and economics but without shitting on other leftist's ideas about identity and anti-fascism. They're part of the problem of infighting amongst the left.

        Fuck that noise. Why can't we just stick to prefigurative poltics and build a better future now instead of shitting on other people's views? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefigurative_politics

        4 votes
        1. [5]
          mftrhu Link Parent
          Mansplaining not being as bad of a problem as income inequality - which leads to things like unequal access to healthcare, to birth control, abortion, hormone therapy, education and more, which is...

          Mansplaining not being as bad of a problem as income inequality - which leads to things like unequal access to healthcare, to birth control, abortion, hormone therapy, education and more, which is a problem which propagates through generations - is probably something we can all agree on.

          But even if it's "just" being talked down, even if it "just" stems from shitty attitudes, it's still a problem - a symptom, maybe, but even if you are working towards eradicating the disease you can't just ignore its symptoms - and it should not be brushed away like that.

          It should very much not be used to wave away feminism as a whole, and that's what they are doing there. It could maybe work as criticism of the lack of intersectionality in modern feminism - and I'd have to ask about what they are referring to - but they aren't giving a fuck about intersectionality, they are far more concerned with "heterosexuality being under attack" or some such.

          Among the most refreshing things about Frost and Khachiyan is that their politics are resolutely not woke. ‘You can tell people that I’m trans’, says Khachiyan, with characteristic irreverence, as Frost, Khachiyan and myself sit down to talk at Eastwood in the Lower East Side. ‘I’m not trans, but you can say that just for fun.’

          And the more I read this, the more irritated I get.

          "I'm not trans, but you can call me that for fun" is... at best, impressively tone deaf. Being outed can still destroy your life, coming out can still get you kicked out or attacked, and yet - here she is. Joking about it.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            tempestoftruth Link Parent
            Let's try to remember the context -- these people host podcasts that are meant to make you laugh. Comedians and the like often do so by saying outrageous or provocative things. If you don't find...

            "I'm not trans, but you can call me that for fun" is... at best, impressively tone deaf. Being outed can still destroy your life, coming out can still get you kicked out or attacked, and yet - here she is. Joking about it.

            Let's try to remember the context -- these people host podcasts that are meant to make you laugh. Comedians and the like often do so by saying outrageous or provocative things. If you don't find this particular comment all that funny, that's quite alright, and if their humor isn't for you, that's also okay, but it is their job to joke about things. That's what they do, and they never claimed they did or stood for anything else.

            3 votes
            1. mftrhu Link Parent
              Is it their job to joke about things? Maybe so. It doesn't particularly matter, because humour is a form of communication, and because what they choose to joke about, and how they go about it, is...

              but it is their job to joke about things.

              Is it their job to joke about things?

              Maybe so. It doesn't particularly matter, because humour is a form of communication, and because what they choose to joke about, and how they go about it, is telling. Together with the rest of the interview, it is telling me everything I need to know about them - "numbnuts ahead".

          2. Akir Link Parent
            I think you're kind of getting to the bottom of why I find these people so irritating. All of their arguments seem to be arguing for the older status quo. It's like they're choosing to label...

            I think you're kind of getting to the bottom of why I find these people so irritating. All of their arguments seem to be arguing for the older status quo. It's like they're choosing to label themselves as progressive in spite of having some very obviously conservative viewpoints.

            2 votes
          3. SourceContribute Link Parent
            Agreed.

            But even if it's "just" being talked down, even if it "just" stems from shitty attitudes, it's still a problem - a symptom, maybe, but even if you are working towards eradicating the disease you can't just ignore its symptoms - and it should not be brushed away like that

            Agreed.

            2 votes
      3. [4]
        Dogyote Link Parent
        I really don't understand your objections, they seem nitpicky and are ignoring the larger point. I'm what an American would call a left of left leftist, and I am very annoyed with identity...

        I really don't understand your objections, they seem nitpicky and are ignoring the larger point. I'm what an American would call a left of left leftist, and I am very annoyed with identity politics. I think it does more harm than good, so much so that I occasionally consider the possibility that it's encouraged by the elite/upper class to keep the masses divided and distracted. That's how bad I think it is. Why is it associated with the left in the first place? Why can't it exist separately from economic issues?

        The excerpts you quoted, particularly the bolded sentences, speak to me. I very much agree with the "dirtbags" (I wish they didn't run with that label). They make valid points, and push back against the actions of fundamentalist humanists, people that appear to take their feelings/emotions as the ultimate truth in the universe, people who make themselves as niche/unique as possible to maximize their victim-hood. Everyone is too busy superficially addressing injustices and focusing on what divides us instead of uniting.

        I'd just like to say, before anyone grabs their pitchfork, that the concerns of what I call fundamentalist humanists (fundamental humanists? humanist fundamentalists?) shouldn't be ignored. They fight for just causes and bring attention to severe injustices. However, it seems like their methods/views are often not allowed to be questioned, which leads to division and the inability to adequately address their concerns on a larger scale. If we can all unite, which is not a trivial task, we'll be able to address the underlying causes of multiple injustices simultaneously. So maybe listen to what the "dirtbags" -sigh- have to say, they may represent more people than you think.

        3 votes
        1. Akir Link Parent
          Superficiality, ironically, is the biggest problem with these figures and the kind of politics they preach. Let's take identity politics as an example; the reason why people generally tend to...

          Everyone is too busy superficially addressing injustices and focusing on what divides us instead of uniting.

          Superficiality, ironically, is the biggest problem with these figures and the kind of politics they preach.

          Let's take identity politics as an example; the reason why people generally tend to think it's a problem is because they think that it's used to create divisions among people. But that's not really the case. Identity politics is used to bring attention to the injustices of minority groups so as to right those injustices. Identity politics is a natural part of any political system - people will tend to form parties with like people, after all. This has been a great force of good. To use the US as an example, it has given us benefits such as legalized gay marriage, giving women the right to vote and own property, and outlawing slavery.

          3 votes
        2. [2]
          mftrhu Link Parent
          And this is why I say "thanks, but no thanks". I'm not ignoring the larger point. I believe the details - what you say I'm nitpicking at - are important, too. I don't really have the luxury of...

          I really don't understand your objections, they seem nitpicky and are ignoring the larger point.

          And this is why I say "thanks, but no thanks". I'm not ignoring the larger point. I believe the details - what you say I'm nitpicking at - are important, too. I don't really have the luxury of ignoring the details, after all.

          Why is it associated with the left in the first place? Why can't it exist separately from economic issues?

          It can. It doesn't - not in the US, and often not in Europe, where the conservatives march on "we don't want more migrants, we want more jobs, we want more c a s t i r o n m a n h o l e c o v e r s" and wave the concerns of minorities away with "there are more pressing concerns [than your rights, or tackling your discrimination]".

          But tell me to my face that "identity politics" - which apparently includes my existence - is something that the Powers That Be brought into this world to divide us, and I'll just laugh in your face.

          They make valid points,

          Which I addressed. But their valid points are buried under a ton of shit takes. Their valid points are about as useful as the red pill, or Jordan Peterson - going to the gym and cleaning your room are good ideas, but they come with baggage.

          and push back against the actions of fundamentalist humanists, people that appear to take their feelings/emotions as the ultimate truth in the universe, people who make themselves as niche/unique as possible to maximize their victim-hood.

          "Making themselves unique to maximize their victimhood" is laughable. If you think that pan people are "doing it for the attention", or that trans people "want to be as unique as possible", then... you are not thinking.

          Everyone is too busy superficially addressing injustices and focusing on what divides us instead of uniting.

          I also addressed this - both in this thread, and a few months ago.

          Yes. They are busy addressing injustices.

          Yes. These injustices are just the symptom of larger issues.

          And it's irrelevant, because you can't just ignore the symptoms while treating your patient. Even if you have a therapy that is guaranteed to work - even if you have a plan that could bring down all inequality in a fell swoop - you need to keep the patient alive until it does its job.

          You need to treat the symptoms, and you can't write that off. And you especially can't write that off as "instead of" - you are not dealing with just one person. You are dealing with a mass of people, which are not united in the first place, which are working towards multiple goals. Those goals include "make life bearable, now", and how they need to go about it is different for different groups. That's not unimportant, or superficial.

          3 votes
          1. alyaza Link Parent
            i like to put it like this: socialism or communism or whatever else is not a magical reset button on everything that magically makes everybody equal and undoes all of the historical injustices and...

            You need to treat the symptoms, and you can't write that off. And you especially can't write that off as "instead of" - you are not dealing with just one person. You are dealing with a mass of people, which are not united in the first place, which are working towards multiple goals. Those goals include "make life bearable, now", and how they need to go about it is different for different groups. That's not unimportant, or superficial.

            i like to put it like this: socialism or communism or whatever else is not a magical reset button on everything that magically makes everybody equal and undoes all of the historical injustices and factors which contribute to unequal outcomes just because you implement it. if we poof socialism into existence in america tomorrow, certain people will still be disadvantaged across the board because the very nature of many aspects of our society have been intentionally or unintentionally stacked against them or constructed in a way that locks them out, and making socialism a thing doesn't address those unto itself. the reason you have to address injustices is not because we need to engage in identity politics or whatever: it's because the injustices of the past often contribute to the outcomes of the future, and ignoring those injustices only ensures that the consequences of such injustices continue to impact the peoples who suffered them.

            4 votes
  3. tempestoftruth Link
    To go against the grain here, I'll talk a little bit about some of their opinions I found compelling. Their point about feminism today is quite strong -- you can see they don't qualify it (likely...

    To go against the grain here, I'll talk a little bit about some of their opinions I found compelling.

    the current wave of media feminism turns her [Frost] off. It is about ‘middle-class women trying to get spots in the boardroom’. ‘A lot of this stuff is “fight the power, put me on the throne”.’ Or it’s, ‘Men are rude to me and they explain things to me’, she jokes. ... ‘They don’t care about working-class women’, Frost says of contemporary feminists. ‘Half the time they’re smearing them as reactionaries because they voted for Trump.’ ... ‘I fundamentally think they are disgusted and horrified by working-class people’, says Khachiyan. ‘Real women don’t live up to the liberal-feminist pieties’, adds Frost. ‘And I think that’s very threatening for the uptight, white, overeducated, liberal women to be confronted with’, replies Khachiyan.

    Their point about feminism today is quite strong -- you can see they don't qualify it (likely because they're against "identity politics" or whatever), but to me this is a similar criticism of modern feminism that women of color often relate when describing their experiences with the feminist movement today. Essentially, the feminism of today (popular feminism, the kind that gets attention in the media) is feminism for white, upper-middle-class women who are looking to just receive the exact same privileges as their male counterparts. Their efforts are about gaining access to this white male privilege. Women of color have no interest in elevating the status of these women who are already pretty privileged, and these white women absolutely don't care about women of color and working-class women. Of course anyone who isn't white and upper-class would be alienated. Feminism should be intersectional and (at the very least) sympathetic to other forms of discrimination, otherwise it's feminism for only wealthy white women.

    I also think their general stance on what they call the "collusion narrative" is interesting. I think left-leaning liberals often jump on this idea that Trump's election was illegitimate and that Russian interference is something we absolutely need to prepare a response to, but as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the effects that Israel has had on our elections are far more insidious (through donations to organizations trying to advance the Israeli agenda in the United States) and have been obvious for much longer as well. The only reason anyone cares about the "Russia issue" is because they believe, if wielded properly, it would eliminate Donald Trump as President. If it was actually about the integrity of our elections, we would do something about AIPAC. I do think this type of corruption, this collaboration between the political and economic spheres to dominate everyone else, is something we should be aware of so we can get rid of it, but to reduce it to just "it was Russia and Trump committed treason" is to miss the point. The problem with all that is that eliminating Trump isn't going to solve anything; as is often said, Trump is only a symptom, not the disease itself. So focusing on this is just about manufacturing outrage, about distracting us from the systemic problems that plague the American system, for example, political corruption.

    12 votes
  4. [12]
    Bullmaestro (edited ) Link
    I have to agree with one thing: the American left wing are entirely out of touch with their own supporters and don't understand why they lost the 2016 election. They blame Russia and the rise of...

    I have to agree with one thing: the American left wing are entirely out of touch with their own supporters and don't understand why they lost the 2016 election.

    They blame Russia and the rise of white nationalism when it's more-so a bad electoral campaign that brought cringeworthy attempts to pander to the millennial crowd like this, this, this, this and pretty much anything else from the treasure trove of Hillary posts you'd find on the r/fellowkids subreddit.

    In fact, Clinton's cringey attempts to be a memelord were so bad that it made Mike Diva's parody video of her far more of an attack on her campaign than the 'Japanese commercial' parody he did on Trump, where the only negative portrayal of him was a split second clip of him doing a Nazi salute in front of an 80s cyberpunk swastika.

    2016 was Hillary's election to lose and she lost it in spectacular fashion.

    And I haven't even gone into the Clinton email leaks (occurring mainly out of bad security practices) which exposed corruption within the DNC and showed just how heavily screwed over Bernie was despite being the more popular candidate. That's the thing. The Democrats chose to field a less popular candidate due to their own internal politics rather than let Bernie lead.

    The guy behind Charisma on Command did a very good video explaining why he thought Donald Trump was going to be the next POTUS to the point where he put a $2000 bet of his own money on it. He made some very good points on why Trump's electoral campaign was actually a stroke of genius, including how he used 'linguistic killshots' to take down rivals one at a time in the primaries, and how he became such a threat that he convinced Hillary to run campaigns against him that gave him even more attention.

    6 votes
    1. [7]
      Diet_Coke Link Parent
      To be fair, Clinton lost the election by negative 3 million votes and there is compelling evidence of interference in North Carolina, possibly even actually changing votes. The NC GOP has a...

      To be fair, Clinton lost the election by negative 3 million votes and there is compelling evidence of interference in North Carolina, possibly even actually changing votes. The NC GOP has a history of electoral disenfranchisement and outright fraud and it isn't a huge leap of faith to think they'd allow Russia to hack their system and ensure a Trump victory. IMO we probably won't find out the whole story for another few years.

      10 votes
      1. [4]
        Bullmaestro Link Parent
        Clinton won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes, but Trump won the electoral college by a much wider margin of 77 votes. North Carolina would have only accounted for 15 of the 304 electoral...

        Clinton won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes, but Trump won the electoral college by a much wider margin of 77 votes. North Carolina would have only accounted for 15 of the 304 electoral college votes he won.

        3 votes
        1. CALICO (edited ) Link Parent
          More specifically, the three states Trump won by the smallest margin were MI, PA, & WI with a combined total of about 78k votes. This thin margin netted 46 electoral votes, 59.7% of his electoral...

          More specifically, the three states Trump won by the smallest margin were MI, PA, & WI with a combined total of about 78k votes. This thin margin netted 46 electoral votes, 59.7% of his electoral win margin.

          Russians launched pro-Jill Stein social media blitz to help Trump win election, reports say. In those three states Stein got nearly twice as many votes as Trump won by. While there are surely some (R)-oriented folks who may have voted for Stein, the Green Party's platform is more closely aligned with the Democratic Party. This campaign by Russia to promote Stein was likely responsible for some amount of lost Clinton votes, providing Trump with a wider margin.

          State Stein Trump
          Michigan 51,463 10,704
          Pennsylvania 49,941 44,292
          Wisconsin 31,072 22,748
          Totals 132,476 77,744

          Georgia election server wiped after suit filed,

          The server in question, which served as a statewide staging location for key election-related data, made national headlines in June after a security expert disclosed a gaping security hole that wasn’t fixed six months after he reported it to election authorities.

          If we presume that some fuckery was involved, which I think is fair considering the destruction of evidence, and that it was enough to tip the scale in Georgia then that gives us another 16 electoral votes for a total of 62.

          North Carolina's 15 gives us 77.

          But that's no reason to think that these five states were the absolute and only states where shenanigans came into play. We know that Illinois and Arizona election rolls were hacked into as well.

          Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say

          “At first it was one state, then three, then five, then a dozen,” says Anthony Ferrante, a former FBI cybersecurity official and member of the White House team charged with preparedness and response to the cyber intrusion. At that point, says Michael Daniel, who led the White House effort to secure the vote against the Russian intrusions, “We had to assume that they actually tried to at least rattle the doorknobs on all 50, and we just happened to find them in a few of them.”

          From legal documents we understand that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were personas used by the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU) to hack and publish documents from the DNC and strategically released to distract attention from things beneficial to the Clinton Campaign or harmful to the Trump Campaign. The first major release was timed three days prior to the 25 July, 2016 Democratic Convention. News coverage gave the impression of bias against Candidate Sanders, and resulted in the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Shultz and disrupted the Clinton Campaign. The second release of stolen information was timed several hours after a statement by Obama's DHS, and the Director of National Intelligence accusing the government of Russia of interfering in the election, and a half-hour after the Washington Post report on the Access Hollywood ("Grab them by the pussy") tape. This release took media attention away from those events.

          WikiLeaks promoted, and Right-Wing media parroted, the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC "leaks" and murdered by the DNC for it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller found in his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election stated that Julian Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obfuscate the fact that Russia was the true source.

          Russian operatives also spear-phished John Podesta, and the release of his emails by WikiLeaks formed the basis of PizzaGate: the debunked conspiracy theory that the Democratic Party was operating a child sex trafficking ring in the basement of a DC pizzeria.

          The 6 January, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution found that:

          The Kremlin’s campaign aimed at the US election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into US state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda. Russian intelligence collection both informed and enabled the influence campaign.

          I'm leaving out a lot, and none of this requires active collaboration of the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. Suffice to say, there's every reason to blame Russia. There's every reason to believe that the 45th President is illegitimate through actions of a hostile foreign nation and not through poor campaigning of Candidate Clinton. Their interference was multi-faceted and widespread, and aimed to directly harm the Clinton Campaign.

          edit: spelling, formatting

          10 votes
        2. Diet_Coke Link Parent
          Yeah, but the EC really came down to, what 80k votes in 4 counties in 3 states? It's not the kind of convincing, sweeping victory that you're trying to paint it as. The only reason it's a 77 point...

          Yeah, but the EC really came down to, what 80k votes in 4 counties in 3 states? It's not the kind of convincing, sweeping victory that you're trying to paint it as. The only reason it's a 77 point margin is because so many states are winner take all. It's a quirk of an antiquated system that has given us the two worst presidents in modern history.

          The effects of voter suppression are why Trump won, though Clinton was certainly not a great candidate and made plenty of errors of her own.

          8 votes
        3. alyaza Link Parent
          if we go down this road, though, you absolutely have to include wisconsin, where the GOP has a third-world understanding of democracy and has repeatedly sought to disenfranchise voters who would...

          if we go down this road, though, you absolutely have to include wisconsin, where the GOP has a third-world understanding of democracy and has repeatedly sought to disenfranchise voters who would pose a threat to their majorities by gerrymandering and making it harder for minorities and democratic voters to vote, which gets us down to 25 electoral votes hanging. florida, a place which had that whole subplot about people trying to hack into electoral databases and clinton's emails switching hands with some dude loosely tied to the trump administration, would probably also be included, which makes 52 electoral votes and because subtracting from one necessarily swings it to the other in a presidential election, we're down to 252 for trump, 286 for clinton. now, is this at all likely? not really, and if you assume it is there are about 18 other things which probably had more impact as i've written about at length but it's not like you can't make a case of interference both domestic and foreign that combines to swing trump the election--it's just not a great explanation (or all that provable) when there are simpler ones like clinton ignoring the midwest, coming into the election only advantaged because of trump, or the comey letter fucking her.

          4 votes
      2. [2]
        frozenplums Link Parent
        Lol of course that's a huge leap of faith

        Lol of course that's a huge leap of faith

        1. Diet_Coke (edited ) Link Parent
          Maybe you can expand on that and do better than a snarky, substanceless one sentence reply?

          Maybe you can expand on that and do better than a snarky, substanceless one sentence reply?

          1 vote
    2. [3]
      alyaza Link Parent
      nate silver has a relatively compelling argument for why this was never actually the case and how, because of donald's status as the nominee for the republicans, the media largely glossed over...

      2016 was Hillary's election to lose and she lost it in spectacular fashion.

      nate silver has a relatively compelling argument for why this was never actually the case and how, because of donald's status as the nominee for the republicans, the media largely glossed over many of the things which were subtly against clinton from the outset like the economy and her running for what would be a third (and later, presumably fourth) consecutive democratic term as president, even though in 2012 they had covered those things quite extensively.

      1 vote
      1. [2]
        Loire Link Parent
        What was wrong with the economy in 2015? (From the perspective of the numbers that matter to presidential campaigns, not the systemic issues that plague our economy but the average person doesn't...

        What was wrong with the economy in 2015? (From the perspective of the numbers that matter to presidential campaigns, not the systemic issues that plague our economy but the average person doesn't fully understand enough to effect their votes).

        1. alyaza Link Parent
          broadly, it wasn't genuinely bad--but it also wasn't good for voters, either, and since the economy tends to be an animating issue for people that somewhat worked against clinton, especially since...

          broadly, it wasn't genuinely bad--but it also wasn't good for voters, either, and since the economy tends to be an animating issue for people that somewhat worked against clinton, especially since she was trying to win a third consecutive democratic term after an obama margin that was relatively close. from the 538 article at the beginning of the cycle in 2015:

          Like Obama’s approval ratings, however, the performance of the American economy has been about average recently. GDP grew by 2.4 percent in 2014, adjusted for inflation, close to the historical average. Furthermore, we know relatively little about what economic growth will look like a year from now, when the general election campaign heats up. Historically, economists have shown almost no ability to predict the rate of economic growth more than six months in advance.

          this did not change very much throughout 2015 or 2016, and the quarter before the election growth was 1.4%. as a sorta demonstration of how the economy issue shook out (and some other stuff, like backlash to the current economic order and certain types of voters trump appealed to and won over better than clinton) trump also won bigger margins in places where the economy was worse.