|
It's funny how Castro eventually concluded that state-sponsored and state neglect of homophobia were wrong, but Woozy can't figure that out himself. Maybe ol' Fidel was poisoned by liberalism after the fall of the USSR, and Mariela Castro is a dangerous counter-revolutionary.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And now we're misgendering. Woozy, great defender of poor trans people, doesn't care, because that's identity politics now too. My fault was watching tv while writing. Ahuvia is an abrasive Maoist like you. Also Sakai was too much of a coward to submit settlers to an academic journal. Even a tankie like Parenti does that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
So uh, when did this become the 'Karl marx economic fanclub'? I thought you guys were going to be talking about stuff like the hypocricy of most media progressives when it comes to people like Caitlyn Jenner or Milo Yiannopolus? I always found it funny how republican gays as a group are viewed by the progressives. Same with republican black voters. Social media progressives will quickly turn on members of a minority who dont confirm to the party line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's not a bourgeois lie or Nazi propaganda to say that the USSR receded on LGBT rights, that it criminalized LGBTness and did so on the basis that LGBTness was bourgeois. It's not a bourgeois lie to engage in criticism of socialist programs as they exist. I don't know what all this poo poo about the Soviet prison system is meant to point to. It absolutely is, because like every other braindead liberal you drop that line without respect to the historical and cultural context in which that reversal took place, nor to the to communist-led opposition to such regressions, nor to parallel developments in Western capitalist nations which took place in a vastly different moral and political landscape. It seems unlikely that a politics built on radical individualism is actually capable of producing something like "homocommunism", and in fact the current state of pink-washing liberal ideology is much better suited to accommodate homonationalism, so good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So uh, when did this become the 'Karl marx economic fanclub'? I thought you guys were going to be talking about stuff like the hypocricy of most media progressives when it comes to people like Caitlyn Jenner or Milo Yiannopolus? They should be seen as all should be seen based on whether their good people or not. Rich fuckers like Jenner are our enemies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So uh, when did this become the 'Karl marx economic fanclub'? I thought you guys were going to be talking about stuff like the hypocricy of most media progressives when it comes to people like Caitlyn Jenner or Milo Yiannopolus? In a way it is, because ultimately the mechanism by which identity politics operate is that of reducing oppressed groups to homogeneous voting blocs whose interests should be interpreted and evangelized exclusively by the liberal intelligentsia. Where public intellectuals and grassroots activism have set themselves in opposition to this program, they are attacked even more viciously than ordinary reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:They can, but they often aren't, in fact the history of leftist movements all around the world shows how difficult it can be to prompt them to take a proactive stance on issues, especially concerning race and gender, that aren't directly related to class. Within those movements you tended to have to have what was identity politics at work to try and force, say, the labour movement in America to try and shed its disdain for nonwhite workers, and they often failed to do so. I keep seeing this but it rings really hollow to me. Leftest movements haven't been especially resistant to issues of race and gender, people have historically been resistant to them. Many left movements excluded those things to be sure, but it's not like they did so in opposition to a right supporting those issues. The economic left has not been a good ally of social movements, but it has been the closest ally. The fates of social justice and class justice are stuck together whether they like it or not. Either side can suck up to power to be the highest slave, but the only real ally either will get is the other. The Democrats deliberately abandoned labour right when they perceived social justice had real power behind it. They could have concluded that they needed to spread the message of social justice within the working class, or link the two more thoroughly in the minds of working class voters, but instead decided they'd drop one demographic for the other. If they hadn't driven a rift between labour and social justice the two would have been an unstoppable coalition. Weird coincidence that. Now working class whites get to decide between a party that hates them because they're working class and a party that hates them because they're working class whites. Working class minorities are also hosed of course but they've never had a party that genuinely cared about them I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So uh, when did this become the 'Karl marx economic fanclub'? I thought you guys were going to be talking about stuff like the hypocricy of most media progressives when it comes to people like Caitlyn Jenner or Milo Yiannopolus? Log cabin republicans got their start supporting politicians that wanted to continue to jail gays in opposition to politicians who wanted to stop jailing gays and haven't gotten any better or less pathetic. Caitlyn Jenner supports a party that think shes a subhuman monster because she personally has enough to wealth to get around anything republicans would do to people like her. Milo Yiannopolus says lovely poo poo like homosexuality should be recriminalized for our own good. "Left wing jews treat jews who vote for Hitler with contempt for not toeing the party line, what a bunch of hypocrites!!!" And yeah  and all, but it frankly isn't unwarranted given the poo poo even 'moderate' republicans push.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Woozy posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? At worst, liberal capitalism has historically been no better than communism on acceptance of LGBT people, and in fact where Western nations have progressed culturally on this question beyond their left counterparts, such development is almost always wielded rhetorically in defense of murder, atrocity, and imperialism, as you now do--see Israel's pathetic invocation of this argument in defense of their own barbarity or the now fashionable line on Castro among American liberals. Arguments to the contrary generally trade in the kind of glib de-contextualization of world history that informs moral panic over the Soviet prison system or any other "human rights" abuses laid at the feet of left political ideology. So yes, repeating bourgeois lies and Nazi propaganda about the Soviets to score points in defense of elite domination of LGBT politics definitely amounts to anti-communism. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Identity politics as a focus makes the Democratic Party make it seem like the party mostly interested in making sure the boards of the banks loving everyone are appropriately diverse rather than doing anything about the banks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So uh, when did this become the 'Karl marx economic fanclub'? I thought you guys were going to be talking about stuff like the hypocricy of most media progressives when it comes to people like Caitlyn Jenner or Milo Yiannopolus? How are republicans members of "the party"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Woozy posted:It absolutely is, because like every other braindead liberal you drop that line without respect to the historical and cultural context in which that reversal took place, nor to the to communist-led opposition to such regressions, nor to parallel developments in Western capitalist nations which took place in a vastly different moral and political landscape. It seems unlikely that a politics built on radical individualism is actually capable of producing something like "homocommunism", and in fact the current state of pink-washing liberal ideology is much better suited to accommodate homonationalism, so good luck with that. See, when you throw together "radical individualism" (lmao) and "without respect to the historical and cultural context", what you are actually saying, to someone who hasn't lobotomized themselves, is that it was good the USSR did those things, and that gays complaining about it need to be beaten into submission. Certainly you are openly saying that these things were inevitable, and so as a consequence the communism you would be shooting for would be one in which homophobic and transphobic violence would inevitably be overlooked and swept under the rug, since it would of course be the consequence of material cultural factors. Nothing we can do! I don't actually understand what capitalist nations have to do with this. It seems to be more lesser-evilism about how there's only two choices, getting killed under capitalism for being a fag, or getting killed under communism for being a fag.Those absolutely aren't the only two choices. For example, we could recognize that people like you will be violently oppressive not just to LGBT people, but to women and racial/ethnic minorities based on your statement so far and focus on making sure you, and other such people, are kept away from power within communist organizations, and in the event of a revolutionary situation, ensure that you get removed from what scraps of power you have managed to acquire. I mean, that's a tragic thing compared to establishing a communism that isn't about justifying and whitewashing the violent suppression of certain classes of society, but it certainly seems that there is no chance you would even consider such a thing. Anyways, I enjoy that you're slipping into "pride parades are bourgeois individualism". Does collectivism mean conformity to you, Woozy? That certainly would be well along the lines of your moral and intellectual incompetence. Panzeh posted:Identity politics as a focus makes the Democratic Party make it seem like the party mostly interested in making sure the boards of the banks loving everyone are appropriately diverse rather than doing anything about the banks. I find it interesting that the focus is on the banks, and not, say, the bourgeoisie as a whole. Are you consciously invoking antisemitic suspicions or is this just a consequence of most "leftists" actually being humdrum liberals?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Woozy posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? At worst, liberal capitalism has historically been no better than communism on acceptance of LGBT people, and in fact where Western nations have progressed culturally on this question beyond their left counterparts, such development is almost always wielded rhetorically in defense of murder, atrocity, and imperialism, as you now do--see Israel's pathetic invocation of this argument in defense of their own barbarity or the now fashionable line on Castro among American liberals. Arguments to the contrary generally trade in the kind of glib de-contextualization of world history that informs moral panic over the Soviet prison system or any other "human rights" abuses laid at the feet of left political ideology. So yes, repeating bourgeois lies and Nazi propaganda about the Soviets to score points in defense of elite domination of LGBT politics definitely amounts to anti-communism. This post is loving garbage and crystallizes basically every problem of the hard left engaging in utterly pointless apologetics that only serve to alienate it from most of the population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
quote:Now working class whites get to decide between a party that hates them because they're working class and a party that hates them because they're working class whites. Working class minorities are also hosed of course but they've never had a party that genuinely cared about them I don't think. Holy poo poo ive never heard it summerized so well. This should be stickied somehow. After the 2012 mid terms i started to become really disillusioned with the democratic party and liberal politics in general after a short lifetime of service when i realized that the 2008 movement that felt like we were united and changing the world fell apart because big chunks of that coalition werent excited to turn out and vote for the downticket because they werent ***the first black president*** After that i really started to notice (like the fedex arrow) that a core pillar of this new Progressive-style democratic party was dedicaded to eroding the social and political power of straight white men. Instead of a rising tide lifting all boats, social justice can only come from putting a weight on one of them. At that point (in no small part to my growing disgust in the D&D community) i punched out for a group that accepted me. And like a brexit voter, i was shocked to find my protest vote actually did something. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I keep seeing this but it rings really hollow to me. Leftest movements haven't been especially resistant to issues of race and gender, people have historically been resistant to them. Many left movements excluded those things to be sure, but it's not like they did so in opposition to a right supporting those issues. The economic left has not been a good ally of social movements, but it has been the closest ally. The fates of social justice and class justice are stuck together whether they like it or not. Either side can suck up to power to be the highest slave, but the only real ally either will get is the other. Like I'm finding this conversation very frustrating because it feels to me that a lot of people saying that Idpol is just a bourgeois distraction or whatever are just fantasizing about a world where its not an issue. The problem is that it is an issue, seemingly more so than ever, and I doubt it will ever be gotten rid of, if people expect to create a unified, powerful leftist movement in America or anywhere else they will need to take it seriously. As much as I loved Bernie Sanders I think his campaign showed fairly well that there must be positive engagement with identity politics among leftists if they expect to win the support of the populace, and that can't just be boiled down too economics all the time. quote:The Democrats deliberately abandoned labour right when they perceived social justice had real power behind it. They could have concluded that they needed to spread the message of social justice within the working class, or link the two more thoroughly in the minds of working class voters, but instead decided they'd drop one demographic for the other. If they hadn't driven a rift between labour and social justice the two would have been an unstoppable coalition. Weird coincidence that. Now working class whites get to decide between a party that hates them because they're working class and a party that hates them because they're working class whites. Working class minorities are also hosed of course but they've never had a party that genuinely cared about them I don't think. I have no intention of defending the Democrats, frankly I must admit I found terrific schadenfreude on the night of the election seeing some very irritating, rigid and smug centrist types being forced to eat some humble pie when it became apparent that a campaign based entirely on 'look at the bad man!' was not nearly enough. But at the same time I find some of this rethoric ridiculous, nobody could argue with a straight face that the Democratic party genuinely hated people just because they were a 'Working Class White'. The narrative that the Democrats put all their eggs in the Idpol basket doesn't make much sense to me, they seemed to have practically nothing planned to meet the needs of any of the identity groups in the Democratic camp, and had historically been extremely lax about doing anything other than taking them for granted. Huge Deportation of Latino immigrants? Practically no progress made in combating police violence or incarceration rates against young black people? Prolonging the ridiculous drug war? Barely touching Americas dodgy welfare system? Allowing the Republicans to continue Gerrymandering and enforcing voter ID laws that made it more difficult for racial minorities to make their voices heard? All represented by a rich white woman who was part of an administration that helped gut Welfare and imprison young men? I guess there were some things like gay marriage (and even there the Democratic leadership was extremely lethargic about doing anything until it was clear that the vast majority of the country was in favor of it), but on the whole this is what it looks like when a party decides that Social Justice is the way to go? Jesus Christ, look I absolutely agree that the Democrats dropped the ball on putting any kind of emphasis on economic issues until it was too late, but if they were the party of Social Justice and identity politics instead they put the minimum amount of possible effort to hold onto that title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I'm glad you, a white gay cisman, speak for all minorities. This is a few pages back, but it's peak_identity_politics.txt. You can't dismiss an argument just because you think the person making it has the wrong ethnicity and/or sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:48
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:This is a few pages back, but it's peak_identity_politics.txt. There was no actual argument in the post being responded to, blowjob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I'm a trans woman. I'm bisexual. I'm white. I'm really poor despite having a job. I "identify" more with rust belt people who had their livelihood lost due to elites lining their pockets and saying "screw you" to the working class, than I do with people like, say, Caitlin Jenner
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:There was no actual argument in the post being responded to, blowjob. Seems like they were having a discussion to me, what on earth do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:I'm a trans woman. Would it be OK if Caitlin Jenner was bashed? Mnoba posted:Seems like they were having a discussion to me, what on earth do you mean? Neurolimal was asserting that he spoke for all LGBT people, and all minorities in general. Stone Cold responded appropriately. Brainiac Five fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You can't dismiss an argument just because you think the person making it has the wrong ethnicity and/or sexual orientation. Besides, you don't get identity politics without the postmodern rejection of objective truth, so it's internally consistent to dismiss a person's arguments based on their ethnicity and/or sexual orientation. The fact that he's the wrong type of person to be espousing those claims simply robs his words of any moral or ethical weight. Just be careful about who you exercise that with because if you apply the same standard to everyone then you are a bigot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:But at the same time I find some of this rethoric ridiculous, nobody could argue with a straight face that the Democratic party genuinely hated people just because they were a 'Working Class White'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Someone linked a tweet in one of the election threads from some Democrat (I'm pretty sure at least) who did explicitly state that he wanted to punish white (working class) people because they were never going to come around to his way of thinking anyway, or something to that effect. Not that this is representative of the party as a whole, but it's a pretty terrible message for even a small part of the party to send. Oh man, how horrible it would be to punish someone for having the wrong opinions, such as being a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Would it be OK if Caitlin Jenner was bashed? Depends what for? She's a member of the financial elite, and has really no common ground with a poor trans person, because she is financially stable and doesn't need to worry about how to afford her medical transition, much less worry about being homeless on the street and reduced too sucking dick to avoid starving to death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Would it be OK if Caitlin Jenner was bashed? Im 75% convinced that the prospect of going to mens prison triggered bruces transition, even if it was gonna happen anyway. gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh man, how horrible it would be to punish someone for having the wrong opinions, such as being a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Depends what for? So under what circumstances are murderous hate crimes acceptable? Is it an income level? A wealth level? If I break the bank in Vegas, is it OK for me to be murdered for being a human being?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh man, how horrible it would be to punish someone for having the wrong opinions, such as being a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Im 75% convinced that the prospect of going to mens prison triggered bruces transition, even if it was gonna happen anyway. gently caress that guy. 1-Jenner had lots of money so her chance of going to prison was lowered anyway. 2-trans women often get sent top men's prison anyway; it would be in their best interests to NOT transition in that case, to avoid being in a men's prison as someone who is effeminate. 3-why misgendering? I can detest Caitlin Jenner without being a jerk and misgendering her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:He didn't want to punish them for having wrong opinions though, he wanted to punish them because they were white, and thus incapable of not having wrong opinions in his view. Uh huh. I, too believe in white genocide. Go murder some Roma, euro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So under what circumstances are murderous hate crimes acceptable? Is it an income level? A wealth level? If I break the bank in Vegas, is it OK for me to be murdered for being a human being? They're never acceptable. But there will be hate crimes regardless of what happens; bringing up people economically allows them to lessen the effects of said hate crimes, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:They're never acceptable. You just said they were sometimes acceptable. Also, I reject the idea that hatred is inevitable or caused by poverty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:See, when you throw together "radical individualism" (lmao) and "without respect to the historical and cultural context", what you are actually saying, to someone who hasn't lobotomized themselves, is that it was good the USSR did those things, and that gays complaining about it need to be beaten into submission. Certainly you are openly saying that these things were inevitable, and so as a consequence the communism you would be shooting for would be one in which homophobic and transphobic violence would inevitably be overlooked and swept under the rug, since it would of course be the consequence of material cultural factors. Nothing we can do! Let me say first that you are welcome to drop this deliberately abrasive and obnoxious gimmick at any time. A rapsheet that spans 10 years of D&D posting should be more than enough to prove my proficiency with the tactic, and I have no reaction one way or another to this kind of cheap provocation and moral posturing. Adult converts to Tumblr-ism might have managed to shake a few liberals with shear overwhelming self-righteousness, but at the risk of sounding like a political hipster, I've been there and done that and you don't scare me in the slightest. I realize also that, for the moment at least, you get off on it--I'm just saying when it starts to get boring no one will blame you for taking it down a notch. As to what little of actual substance appears in your post, radical individualism is the heart and soul of liberal identity politics and it couldn't be more obvious. The whole style of left identitarians drinks deeply of the liberal multiculturalist rhetoric of self-determination and individual overcoming of collective suffering, exemplified recently in the now-crumbling narrative of Hillary Clinton's political ascendancy. How else could one characterize a politics organized around the project of introducing key representatives of oppressed groups into the class of bourgeois property owner--the gold standard of emancipation, according to identity politics--as both goal and overarching strategy? The most charitable explanation of this project is that its engineers actually do think liberal institutions can accommodate this level of organized ladder-climbing, but if so it is almost pathetically naive. The more cynical claim, which certainly has weight, is that it looks an awful lot like careerism and brokerage. The obsession with jargon, political correctness, and subjective experience is rooted in the need to dominate discourse, to assert and authority, to establish left politics as the dominion of idle academic bitching and consciousness-raising from which some political victory another will simply materialize from the bottomless font of Twitter-shaped insight, and finally to commodify such "expertise" in the pattern of so many other bullshit cottage industries. Worse than all of that, however, is that the notion of inflatable institutions and endless political emancipation is situated within an ideology that pre-supposes a revolutionary power within capitalism itself, claiming as you do that capitalism has "better record" on the subject than communism, and judging the contest exclusively according to the ideals of none other than liberal capitalists themselves. It is ideology, not identity, that drives the suspiciously anti-communist dimestore leftism of so many self-styled "progressives". Look no further than the political right, who play this game far better than you and always have, for the final stage of identity politics--namely, the politics of the "white working class", or as anyone with a brain calls it: nationalism. They likewise cherish the American dream of bourgeois ascendance, of overcoming, and so to have no patience for left denunciations of that dream as being rooted in bloody conquest and vicious exploitation. That their political movement is fundamentally opposite to the goals of leftism is disputed only by idiots who are fundamentally mistaken about the terms involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:
I was asserting that polls showing the opinions of minority demographics spoke for minorities polled. At no point have I said that I speak for all minority groups. They speak for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal WHO crowned you Emperor of Minorities?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You just said they were sometimes acceptable. Bashing someone in the sense that you insult her. Saying "Caitlin Jenner is an out of touch millionaire." Isn't a hate crime. I don't know if I agree with that, my point is that having wealth helps alleviate the effects of bigotry and hatred an individual might have directed towards them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh man, how horrible it would be to punish someone for having the wrong opinions, such as being a fascist. Noted fascists, midwestern democrats who voted for Obama but not Clinton
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Let me say first that you are welcome to drop this deliberately abrasive and obnoxious gimmick at any time. A rapsheet that spans 10 years of D&D posting should be more than enough to prove my proficiency with the tactic, and I have no reaction one way or another to this kind of cheap provocation and moral posturing. Adult converts to Tumblr-ism might have managed to shake a few liberals with shear overwhelming self-righteousness, but at the risk of sounding like a political hipster, I've been there and done that and you don't scare me in the slightest. I realize also that, for the moment at least, you get off on it--I'm just saying when it starts to get boring no one will blame you for taking it down a notch. Your first paragraph is very telling. You believe everyone is as hollow, soulless, and sexually dysfunctional as you. Well, looks like we've figured out the root causes of why you're evil. Everything else constitutes platitudes and repeating cant. You have reached the limit of your abilities and retreat into ineffectual efforts at bullying. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your first paragraph is very telling. You believe everyone is as hollow, soulless, and sexually dysfunctional as you. Well, looks like we've figured out the root causes of why you're evil. Happy to be of service. See you later!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Thalantos posted:Bashing someone in the sense that you insult her. Saying "Caitlin Jenner is an out of touch millionaire." Isn't a hate crime. "Bashing" in the context of LGBT people refers to assaults and murders committed as hate crimes. Why do you believe bigotry is inevitable against LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:30
|
|