Persuading people also means bringing more people on-board. Our research shows that progressive campaigners are more likely to require complete ideological alignment for people they protest alongside, limiting who can join their cause.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Obviously "I wouldn't want to work with someone who votes for a very right-wing party" is miles away from requiring 'complete ideological alignment'. The fact that you chose to include this graph to illustrate this point suggests either you think those are the same thing, or you're being dishonest.
Oh and where can I see the data on the this for the other demographic groups? Seems odd to make this claim without publicising the data which actually proves it
Labour HQ is not in the “progressive activists” block these days, obv - but some of their councillors are - & when those councillors tried to work across a broad political spectrum, it was the HQ block who nixed it (rather spectacularly blowing up the administration) https://bsky.app/profile/carolinejmolloy.bsky.social/post/3limu44qvrs2z
This does not mean that everyone should be involved in every campaign , but the most effective campaigns will accept that people have different reasons for supporting a particular cause, and embrace that rather than shunning people with different worldviews.
Good q! It's in the report (page 73), but has been in our presentations we give to the climate sector for years so not sure what the original one was :)
So while you might not want to campaign alongside a Reform voter on refugee policy you might find you agree with them on pushing for greater regulation of social media. You may disagree with an evangelical Christian on trans rights, but share the same views on foreign aid.
"Sarah here wants trans people to be fed into a wood chipper on live TV, but she has some really great ideas on community gardens - let's work with her"
You're doing the work of conservative propaganda Ed Hodgson. The sad part is you're probably not being paid. You're doing their bidding for a pat on the head that will never be granted.
See, I’m *actually* trans and *actually* Christian. There are plenty of ways I share commitments with Evangelicals (& plenty of places I’m showing up for conversation)
but “do I have the right to exist” is a conversation that *by its premises* already harms me.
The Christians want me dead, Ed. I can’t be bothered to give a shit to work with them with that rattling in their skulls, Ed.
I gave them a chance to fix it and they decide they want a godking fucking their faces with Medicare cuts. They have to make the choice to work with me, not I them.
The actual bottom line is that people are willing to suffer evils as long as they consider them bearable — i.e. not affecting them — and that does not mandate progressives accommodate, it mandates that centrists develop better empathy and learn what is intolerable.
Also there’s a real world contradiction to your dataset: people will believe what they’re told / encouraged to believe — if more voices tell them white privilege is a loaded term wielded by progressives to effect radical changes, that’s what they’ll think is true.
Or you might be trans and find talking to people who want you not to exist to be somewhat difficult. Or - and this is going to be difficult for you, but give it a whirl - you might have an understanding of what solidarity means both in principle and in practice.
If there was some group that believed all men should be tortured for a few years, just a little light torture, for your own good you understand, and they were politically working towards it and had institutional support, you'd be okay with working with them on transport policy would ya Ed?
Realistically a "progressive" vers of SM regs and foreign aid would be incompatible with what those 2 groups have in mind. They wouldn't want the aid to go to some vulnerable groups & the SM regs would be don't be rude to right-wing/centre journalists/MPs & don't say Zionism is racist in practice.
I believe that Ed Hodgson and all of his loved ones should be denied basic human rights and access to health care. If possible, I'd like them all to be driven from public life.
You and I can still campaign together on the issues we agree on, though, right?
This is so fucking stupid. Why would I want to support the far right in having more control over social media? This isn't about some minor disagreement, it's about diametrically opposed material goals.
"Maybe we should ban comments for incendiary, open racism or whatever" vs "maybe we should ban criticism of the government and/or worker's ability to organise and also LGBT orgs and communities"
Centrists: ah so you both want social media censorship, you could work together on that :)
Like getting the highly intelligent but bored and disruptive kid and the burgeoning arsonist in a class to work on their year 9 chemistry project together, brilliant stuff.
why should i compromise with someone who doesn't think i deserve rights?
often when non-trans people talk about trans rights, it's about some unknowable "other" - not themselves, or loved ones. well, i'm trans, any so are many of my loved ones. i'm not keen to let others strip us of human rights
So you may find broad agreement on 'foreign aid', for example, but it will always come with caveats that it cannot include funding for AIDS work, or contraception, or abortion services, or LGBTQ+ rights, and those groups get kicked to the curb. The devil is always in the detail. Your example sucks.
So POC and queer people should put themselves forward to potentially be hate crimed by people who say how much they hate us, we’re ruining the country, and deserve to be locked up because… centrists refuse to enact policies that materially benefit anyone, opening up space for fascists? I think no!
Yeah but they're bigots so fuck them off altogether. Working alongside bigots does nothing but push minorities from your cause. Why should we work with bigots when we could just enthuse more non-voters instead?
Hey I'm wondering whether More in Common would like to review the pages and pages of dmed abuse I get from people who want to kill me because I report about trans rights. do you think I could get them to work with me on our shared political goals about online safety
Both of those things are red lines for me though. I can work with people I share minor policy disagreements on, sure, but I’m not lending my support to people on any issue who want innocent people gone, dead, or silenced. Support on any issue helps legitimise them on all issues.
At the same time, campaigners should have confidence to make space to debate issues rather than shut debate down as harmful. Whereas Progressive Activists see the good in this, every other segment is more likely to see it as silencing their views, making it harder to persuade them to a cause.
"You must tolerate the intolerant" is the most noxious tripe imaginable. It tells us something about the class backgrounds, material conditions and ideology of the person saying it.
I've had friends had GUNS POINTED AT THEM at a peaceful protest in OR, maybe my friend should have been nicer?
FFS
Which specific aspects of trans existence do you think the right have actually intellectually honest points that deserve debate about? Which things have they said with real factual bases?
To take this a step further, persuading people is, and always has been a lie. If a truth does not stand on its merits, it is not true. If someone replaces truth with belief, they are broken, and you cannot fix them. It's not our place to derail belief, but to provide truth when people fall off.
A useful rule for changing minds is to start with your ‘audience’ and work back. e.g Excluding Progressive Activists, the public tend to assume protestors are in the wrong when they clash with police, so if the aim is increasing public support, clashes with police may not be the best media attention
It is obviously not the case that backlash against progressive causes in recent years is entirely the fault of progressive campaigning. But it is also remiss for progressives not to reflect on what it is about their own campaigning that hasn’t worked.
If they are in the business of changing minds Progressives need to go beyond “in group approval” and work with those who they might not ordinarily consider allies on every issue
My man, there is an entire right wing media ecosystem telling people that immigrants and trans people are the scariest things in the country. Progressive’s tactics are almost entirely beside the point.
> so if the aim is increasing public support, clashes with police may not be the best media attention
Ok but progressives don't get to decide if the police will start a fight with them, nor how the media will report it. The only way they can avoid being framed by the media is.. not protesting.
Good to know you think the Stonewall Riots were a mistake then Ed. Plus obviously that the Suffragettes were terrible, plus the civil rights movement too. Oh and anti-apartheid campaigners? Definitely useless.
Oh wait, they were all successful despite doing the opposite of what you're saying? Huh..
People who think you can only do strident protests and can't do more fuzzy awareness raising or court challenges or electoral politics because that somehow weakens the protests seem wrong to me, you can in fact do more than one thing.
But likewise I don't see that harder tactics undermine softer.
The problem with this is policy changes aren't determined by how individual groups of people feel about protestors & police. It's about how the state feels. The majority of people hated MLK while he was alive and thought his protests were counterproductive, but they worked.
The idea that because some other groups like Nazis being platformed, means that us believing they shouldn't be, makes it harder for us to persuade them, has no basis in reality. *Yet again* you haven't provided any evidence to back it up, it's just yet more centrist editorialising.
Depends how you define a "viewpoint" - if I say "x people are vermin" that's a viewpoint but not one that has any useful place in a debate, so ignoring it is not an issue.
If I say "x people are vermin because they eat children" that's a view built on a lie, which also has no place.
A large part of the reason that we are where we are is that bizarre or fringe and unacceptable views have been treated as valid, and have been amplified by being included as "balance" in the media.
It's beyond time that people who contribute nothing useful were told to zip it.
I know some joker will say "who decides what is acceptable or right?" which is the standard "gotcha", but it's obvious in most cases that rubbish is rubbish - reality is your guide.
It's also incumbent upon you to justify any assertion that suggests some people should have fewer rights than others.
The problem is, the people in power who are being racist, homophobic and transphobic do not care! They aren’t interested in a debate but equally why should people from minority groups or historically discriminated groups debate their rights or existence? Why do they have to justify themselves?
Why should LGBTQ+ have to engage when the people lying they wanna debate wanna spew evil bigoted lying garbage and be abusive and try to tell you who they’ll allow you to be or not? Plus too many pushing debate wanna make everything worse for LGBTQ+ and others plus too many spin against us
Ed, sweetheart, currently the US government is shutting down projects because they mention 'diversity' or 'women' or 'minority' and you think it's the left that shuts down debate?
Do you ever stop and worry that you tailored your survey to give these answers?
That if, for example, you'd have asked people which of their views they're unwilling to pause talking about for the sake of progress on another topic, it might have painted a different picture?
I think you agree with the right wing, and you are just too much of a coward to admit it, so you hide behind charts to justify your crypto fascist bullshit
There's an obviously correct side here. Debating transphobes legitimizes transphobia. Debating climate change deniers legitimizes climate change denial. Debating fascists legitimizes fascism. And on and on.
Some of the worst things going on right now are directly caused by giving ridiculous...
We don't need to entertain the beliefs of people who think certain people deserve to be exterminated. We don't need to pretend that's a valid position worthy of debating.
When ‘debate’ begins by telling me I don’t exist - and if I do I’m not entitled to equal treatment under the law we have absolutely nothing to discuss. I shouldn’t have to convince people I’m real, I’m human. Thanks to those here who articulated these thoughts and feelings much better than could I.
How about we just trade in the right for anyone called Ed to use a hospital in exchange for better public transport? Do you see my point yet or do I need more absurd bullshit?
For fuck sake, how do you spineless Liberals never call into question why we're always expected to capitulate to the right for economic changes that THEY want, while NEVER giving us anything in return?
Why is it us, the marginalised, are ALWAYS the ones told to sit down and shut up?
Because people like Ed here presume that we aren't being materially harmed. If we talk about our passports, our right to public spaces, and the lynchings happening his brain disconnects from our reality.
They think this is about sports, not children being beaten to death for being queer.
if someone thinks that the harrowing violent deportations of asylum seekers are good and should be expanded, then that person should be excluded not just from debates and campaigning but from public life in general
And here is the problem in a nutshell: There has to be a common ground in order to work together. Racists and people who target trans people have left this common ground.
Working with them only works to normalize their rejection of human rights and democracy.
Since he isn't trans and is white, he is hardly going to care, his privilege is so ingrained that he doesn't have the slightest knowledge of how minorities can't possibly give an inch to bigots because they'll eventually take a mile
Trans people getting killed to try and attract people who were just going to vote for someone else anyway is, like, just a totally abstract concept for you, isn’t it?
The left have aligned with the religious on issues as Gaza and Iraq, and been attacked for that as promoting Islamism! This has been a standard trope from the Iraq War up to the Gaza genocide.
This extreme level of plámásing of the right by centrists is so bad I think it gave me a nose bleed.
Like LGBT people over there on Brexit island voted for Starmer's bland right wing bullshit and got Wes Streeting implementing full on TERF policies and he thinks they need to be nicer to transphobes?
So, what's happening here, Ed, is you made very stupid words
See, when you say peoples rights to live unobstructed by the state and reap protections under the law are exchangeable with... money, then it shows you to be unserious, deeply flawed, and probably villainous.
Hey Ed when you say "you" do you just mean yourself? Or do you genuinely expect immigrants to campaign for internet safety alongside people who want to deport them, or trans people to campaign on foreign aid alongside people who call them paedos and want to remove their medical care?
You're so invested in the idea of working with everyone being "common sense" that you fail to see that welcoming racists, misogynists and transphobes to your cause excludes black people, women and queer people, because they're endangered by it.
The idea that I have anything in common with someone who wants me not to exist is ridiculous. Someone like you should not be in charge of "More In Common".
You need to recognise that there are red lines & that working with transphobes, racists, homophobes, etc is one trans people will not cross...
The way you apply "More In Common" rhetoric is inherently discriminatory. There are people, like transphobes, whose views are so extreme that others cannot work with them, attempting to suggest that the victims of their hate should do so constitutes a form of victim-blaming on your part...
And they are very well-funded and have access to levers of power that trans people and other oppressed groups do not have. You can't civil debate your way out of that.
You may WANT everyone to live together like a big happy family but you have to understand that there are exceptions. Would you suggest a Muslim should have to work alongside Tommy Robinson? So why are you suggesting a trans person should work alongside a transphobe? You are treating the perpetrator
my guy, if someone's position on trans rights is that people like me should not be allowed to exist in public then I'm not going to fucking work with them on anything, if for no other reason than sheer self-preservation
Progressive single-issue campaigning is better done independently of fascists who happen to agree on this one point (often from a completely different direction). Embarrassing that this needs to be explained
I cannot imagine anyone with any shred of moral fibre or good character standing with groups who look to America right now and say we need more of that.
Quick question. How am I meant to work with someone who literally does not want me to exist in public at all and will not even do me the basic courtesy of using my name.
People who don't want trans people to exist are the same as people who don't want Jewish or Black people to exist. They're fascists. Get in the absolute bin with placating them.
As someone who first hand witnessed what evangelical Christians mean when they say foreign aid, I can definitely state that I very much disagree with them even on that particular topic.
If someone doesn't respect the personhood of trans people or refugees, I absolutely don't trust their views or principles about anything else. If they can't even agree that humans are humans, regardless of colour, religion, sexuality, gender, place of origin, then no, I won't be working with them.
You’re right. I might disagree with Iran on women’s rights but I definitely find myself agreeing with them when it comes to America being a dangerous empire that needs to fall.
I add that regarding transphobic people, we're talking about people who want genocide, any claims that it's not the case is pure political correctness gone mad, and they developed a lot of blood libel-like conspiracy theories to turn anything they are involved into genocidal organization.
It's also worth mentioning that "pro lgb without the t" organizations allied with homophobes or "feminist" organizations allied with extreme misogynists aren't doing their stated mission or aren'tremotelyprogressive. They are reactionary front organization aimed at dumb ignorant centrists.
It’s one thing to invite people into the fold who’ve voted for different candidates in the past or held different political outlooks in the past vs inviting ppl who actively hold extremist reactionary views. Working with former Tory/reform voters is fine. Working with TERFs is unacceptable
Comments
but “do I have the right to exist” is a conversation that *by its premises* already harms me.
I gave them a chance to fix it and they decide they want a godking fucking their faces with Medicare cuts. They have to make the choice to work with me, not I them.
“I’d join your cause, except the way you told me is so rude that I can’t agree with you” is not an acceptable answer.
You and I can still campaign together on the issues we agree on, though, right?
Centrists: ah so you both want social media censorship, you could work together on that :)
Absolutely flawless analysis, sure, but I am offended nonetheless ;)
often when non-trans people talk about trans rights, it's about some unknowable "other" - not themselves, or loved ones. well, i'm trans, any so are many of my loved ones. i'm not keen to let others strip us of human rights
"trans people's right to use bathrooms is a distraction".
But I'm not gonna look it up, because Ed and his views are a distraction.
Peace, out!
That was a really... REALLY stupid thing to say.
I can tell you've never been systematically oppressed, or had to fight for your rights, your humanity, or your existence.
Are you... are you a cishet white man, perchance?
You picture suggests so but looks can be deceiving.
And I hate labels.
It's possible to explain, for instance, why we don't debate the existence or validity of trans lives without DEBATING their existence or validity.
Or do we accept that some views should be regarded as illegitimate, and it is indeed harmful to legitimise them through debate?
Go to hell, you Quisling.
Hope this helps!
may i remind you that democrats did this in 2024 and lost the popular vote to the stupidest man in the country
Lololololololololololol
I've had friends had GUNS POINTED AT THEM at a peaceful protest in OR, maybe my friend should have been nicer?
FFS
Ok but progressives don't get to decide if the police will start a fight with them, nor how the media will report it. The only way they can avoid being framed by the media is.. not protesting.
Oh wait, they were all successful despite doing the opposite of what you're saying? Huh..
Because Progressive protesters tend to Rally against the status quo, something the police are charged with protecting.
I think there are heavy tensions at work in these factors and their implications.
The answer to me that doing everything. A cause need not be pursued all by one tactic.
But likewise I don't see that harder tactics undermine softer.
If I say "x people are vermin because they eat children" that's a view built on a lie, which also has no place.
It's beyond time that people who contribute nothing useful were told to zip it.
It's also incumbent upon you to justify any assertion that suggests some people should have fewer rights than others.
It's not like people are arguing over marmite or pineapple on pizza, we're talking about people who consider certain demographics sub-human.
That should not be considered civil discourse.
what views
That if, for example, you'd have asked people which of their views they're unwilling to pause talking about for the sake of progress on another topic, it might have painted a different picture?
Some of the worst things going on right now are directly caused by giving ridiculous...
There's an objectively correct answer to "should we debate this nonsense" and it remains correct regardless of how many people disagree with it.
You're an awful piece of shit.
it is a grave error to lionise the process of debate without treating it as what it is- a tool with strengths & weaknesses.
Should I have worked with Hitler to ban the live boiling of lobsters?
Why is it us, the marginalised, are ALWAYS the ones told to sit down and shut up?
They think this is about sports, not children being beaten to death for being queer.
They know the right will never give up anything to get something, but they expect us to
Working with them only works to normalize their rejection of human rights and democracy.
We are PEOPLE, Ed. We want to LIVE.
What happened to your humanity?
Like LGBT people over there on Brexit island voted for Starmer's bland right wing bullshit and got Wes Streeting implementing full on TERF policies and he thinks they need to be nicer to transphobes?
See, when you say peoples rights to live unobstructed by the state and reap protections under the law are exchangeable with... money, then it shows you to be unserious, deeply flawed, and probably villainous.
Delete your thread of unhelpful, pandering, 'working with the enemy' bullshit, and reexamine how absurdly, intensely stupid you're looking right now.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, right?
You need to recognise that there are red lines & that working with transphobes, racists, homophobes, etc is one trans people will not cross...
In effect you are attempting to justify bigotry at the expense of victims of bigotry. You really have not thought this through at all...
I mean it, just because there's some degree of commonality, so what?
My collaboration with them on anything would imply my support of their other ideals.
Sometimes "disagreement" is a deal-breaker.
They can campaign, but as far away from me as possible.
We campaign for social media regs for protecting the vulnerable .etc
They campaign for broader right wing control and against "bias" - even though they have the most powerful voice in social media.
Last year the controversy was groups who self-identify as nazis were at this conference because of the blurring lines of US politics.
Farage and Truss attended that CPAC. Now Truss thinks we need a MAGA UK.
No.
Judging by the fact you posted this, you also believe that you deserve to be humiliated and abused
We could agree on needing to find you a dominatrix and take care of those needs in a less destructive manner, yes?
WHAT THE FUCK YOU INHUMAN MONSTER? You would let me die for “more important matters”?
Why are you planning a final solution against us?
Because JKR wants to rule toilets? 🤔⁉️
That's the centrist way!