I explained before, in response to the post in question, that you can’t collaborate with groups without a degree of indistinguishability. You’re seeing that I was right in action.
Consider, for a moment:
Centrists hate progressives. Centrists hate leftists. Their entire game is built around sabotaging us at every turn, it depends upon sabotaging us at every turn. If I’ve escalated the tensions between centrists and the left by calling for cross-ideological collaboration, good. You’re welcome. Maybe we’ll have a real out-in-the-open fight on our hands soon.
Compare what I said before:
Or, in point of fact, the Republicans and Democrats aren’t indistinguishable and your wider thesis needs reconsidering. I suggest starting with your intense interest in who your ideological brethren¹ are (i.e. the ubiquitous use of lefties above) and the arbitrary exclusion of working with the establishment even though they are exactly as distasteful to you as the extremists on the other end of the spectrum.
It really is very odd. Your message is simultaneously trying to convince us of a task-oriented or goal-focussed approach to political existence while also expounding one of the most we-centric narratives I have ever encountered. If the goals are what matters, there is no “we” to speak of: there are merely questors of the objective. Once you start talking about a we you start talking about an identity.
Ask yourself, what does your world look like? If you achieve your goals without the ideologically right anti-establishment -establishment-, sorry, bloc being involved is that the same world that you get if you achieve your goals with them? It seems absurd to suggest that these worlds are the same to me. In one, political normality would rest with, apparently, socialist feminism and in the other political normality would include socialist feminists and whatever the hell the alt-light is. Those are not remotely similar worlds.
I suggest that if you really care about goals that you stop using labels. Any labels. That includes socialism. That includes feminism. It sure as hell includes left and right. None of these terms are remotely as meaningful as the particular policy that is being proposed in front of you. And not caring about the label means it is so much easier to notice when a suggestion is perhaps ignorant of how people actually behave. To quote myself in a different context:
The journalist does only have responsibility to truth. It’s just that it is a poor truth that is does not respect its subjects nor its implications. I would go as far to say it is not truth at all.
This is, in fact, your journalism and now you find yourself mopping up after a failure to respect (a) that people gonna people and (b) the distinctions between the world you want obtained by one means and another. You have made your own bed, and now you must lie in it. Still, allow me a final word of advice:
One’s words do not always possess the meaning that one intends.