|
here's a much better critique on toxic activist culture that came up in the gibbis Tumblr thread: http://quinnae.com/2014/01/03/words-words-words-on-toxicity-and-abuse-in-online-activism/ some money quotes: quote:But in the process, “the tone argument” came to be understood less as a complex piece of social machinery than an easily identifiable trope; it then became a badge that could be waved at will in any discussion to absolve one of responsibility for their words. Even though we as leftists quite literally wrote the book(s) on why and how language matters, we suspend that understanding when it comes to our own community members because we have come to value the sanctity of their anger over the integrity of the wider group. Some of us excuse this on the grounds that we provide the only safe place for certain people to express anger without being shamed for it, and that living with oppression leaves us with pent up rage that demands expression. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ability to belittle and dismiss someone's point without addressing it: a power unique to leftism and possessed by no human who has not fallen prey to left-wing radicalism. Sorry, I know I'm opening myself up to being dismissed out of hand by a ~tone argument~, but it's hard to restrain the sarcasm in the face of things so obviously wrong. Not inly is dismissiveness not unique to leftism, but explaining away any criticism and acting like a dick toward everyone who doesn't say the right magic words or have the right magic attributes has worked wonders for conservatives, actually. quote:But in the process, “the tone argument” came to be understood less as a complex piece of social machinery than an easily identifiable trope; it then became a badge that could be waved at will in any discussion to absolve one of responsibility for their words.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I get that there's a visible trend to portray the problems of people who suffer under multiple axes of oppression as necessarily more urgent, but I'm not aware that intersectionalism as such insists that activists defer to a hierarchy of identity. The theory is more about highlighting the practical context and hitherto intractability of oppression rising from the points of intersection. For example, does increasing police resources for domestic violence effectively help women of color, who are disproportionately likely to also be victimized by the police? Disabled women can find themselves trapped in cycles of lessened autonomy and vulnerability, and existing strategies for combating abuse are frequently insufficient for their long-term wellbeing, so what should be done? I feel these are pretty valid inquiries made in the framework of intersectionality that don't demand attention or energy be drawn from one cause to another, but for us recognize that there are significant differences to be accounted for if we are to be honest in our calls for solidarity. all these problems with intersectionality and privilege-checking and whatnow are just symptoms of the fact that leftism has been horribly infected with identity politics. You can point to historical precedent of labor movements selling out the minority groups of the membership but all that means is to try again and be vigilant about that possibility, not abandon all pretext of collective action and exalt the individual uber alles. though at this point all this blather really is examining the corpse of leftism and trying to figure out what killed it. the modern incarnation of leftist politics has been completely and utterly defeated.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Ormi posted:But it does, and this refocuses back into the topic in the OP. Privilege theory makes it unequivocally clear that minority voices and perspectives need to be empowered if we're well-meaning about progress and solidarity. "Universal" analyses often inadvertently create action which disproportionately benefits majority groups. That's what "checking your privilege" meant— having the consciousness necessary to realize that your own perspective is insufficient for understanding the lived experiences of oppressed people. To what end is all this being done? Framed this way it sounds like the whole point, to put it in vulgar terms, is to make the disempowered individual feel good about themselves. That's not terrible, but in the grand scheme it seems about as important as privileged folk feeling bad about their privilege. I.E. useless for concrete change
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 19:39
|
|