Liberal cringe thread

Liberal cringe thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors44/tmb/bobby-seale-quote-we-were-not-talking-about-the-average-white-person.jpg
isj.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-privilege-theory/
socialistworker.org/2015/05/14/fighting-racism-and-the-limits-of-allyship
libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell
libcom.org/library/limits-contemporary-anti-oppression-theory-practice
marxisttheory.org/the-new-left/
marxisttheory.org/socialist-feminism/
isreview.org/issue/81/black-liberation-and-communist-international
reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4irt9y/eli5_what_is_the_socialist_position_on_identity/d310g49/
reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4irt9y/eli5_what_is_the_socialist_position_on_identity/d30nf2l/
youtube.com/watch?v=nucx1L1MkPo
youtu.be/nucx1L1MkPo?t=202
youtube.com/watch?v=KmkXCsqJee0
pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract
twitter.com/gynostar/status/740368802282512385
reddit.com/r/LibCringe/
youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

Centre-leftists are almost more blinded by ideology than Trump voters

At first I would have agreed but the Trump base has really devolved over the last few months. They're completely blinded by ideology now.

...

...

Is it wrong that I hate liberals more than Nazis?

Libs are more common so no, it's understandable

...

Not really. Nazis are relatively harm less right now whereas liberals have been fucking shit up for decades.

I don't think there's any other pic that would be a better snapshot of the Democrat party now tbh

How's that for pure ideology. Just because America's left wing politics got castrated and your system is limited to the center-right fighting the right doesn't mean that liberals are suddenly leftists.

...

...

if I had an ideology for every time i've explained this to either liberals of cuckservatives then we'd be at at least one terazizek for certain

what is this referring to

...

Mein gott… the classcucks… the ideology… it is too much

...

If Putin is as powerful as libs think why couldn't he take the Ukraine?

No, but it would fucking help

he will as soon as trump is elected,

...

why is Hillary being arrested?

He's just biding his time until the right opportunity presents itself, user

He's playing n-dimensional xiangqi, remember

That'd be nice. He should also take Belarus and Kazakhstan. Then Russia's borders will finally stop looking so shit-awful on the map.

God I wish that was true

No
At least Nazis have a basic understanding that history is written by the victors, liberals will believe literally anything the CIA wants them to

The world just doesn't understand everything she sacrificed or how much she cares.

Baneposting

...

Fuck false consciousness and fuck idpol peddling capitalist whores.

because trump is clearly so anti-capitalist you retard

Trump is the closest thing to an american nazbol

Olberman sure does enjoy calling people whores.

Oh sweet Stirner user, don't get me excited I almost creamed myself.

So smart

...

...

:^)

Keith Olbermann has gone completely off his rocker. It's been entertaining to watch, but a bit scary at the same time. I'm glad those tweets exist so they can be pointed to & laughed at for their absurdity.

That's his entire act. There's a reason he went off the air during the Obama years. He needs someone to yell at otherwise he is very boring.

Hell if anything to say Clinton's main argument was "Vote for me I'm a woman" is being generous. It was mainly "Vote for me it's my turn"


I knew that's what they were gunning for, but I never thought the bourgeoisie would openly admit it

Btw, this was obviously before the Onion was bought out.

Didn't he get thrown off the air because he was pro-OWS? How far he's fallen.

DO YOU SEE HOW IDPOL WORKS NOW????

It's like they didn't even read the quote they posted. Anyone with a basic understanding of politics can see why that quote certainly applies to Clinton. Those were her donors. Calling this guy an idiot would be an understatement.

saved

Any defenders get rightfully laughed off the board.

Fighting racism, sexism is important, but it doesn't take precedence over economic slavery. Who gives a shit if someone's racist to you if you're living day by day, trying to survive? One is much more destructive than the other.

But why can't it be both? That's what's so terrible about idpol. They say one should be fought & not the other. That quote from HRC says it best. It's all destructive & should be fought. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

cont.

Idpol is destructive because it divides people, so they can't work for their common benefit. These people are so drowning in ideology they actually view sexism/racism as more oppressive - while being sexist & racist.

It's a real mindfuck.

In rhetoric only. He meanwhile fills his cabinet with the same people Hillary would have. Lobbyists/establishment politicians(EPA), Goldman Sachs for treasury.

idk we need to find a new term for what youre describing because by saying


youre implying idpol is inherently contrarian to and seperate from socialism while theyre actually deeply tied to each other. you cant fight for a classless society without fighting racism and sexism, its just as you said that the capitalist exploitation lies at the root of the issue and must be solved before we can ever achieve gender equality

idpol in itself is after all very generic and only describes political struggle related to certain identities which _is_ important no matter what some tankie larpers and brocialists might whine on about here

W…wtf? Don't be so open minded your brain falls out.

triggered

It's called actual social justice.

You need to either leave or never use this term again. Hilariously, it goes against exactly what you're saying.

But the term you're looking for is: social justice

so i guess the social justice movements of the last decades have all just been a big fluke alright. you realize identity politics is nothing new it has forefronted social justive movements for years. what do you think MLK was engaging in if not identity politics. theres nothing inherently bad about it is what im saying, it only poisons the political climate when it is used by the capitalists to divide and distract once again and for _that_ we need our own term

no thank you

brocialistbrocialistbrocialistbrocialistbrocialist

Idpol without class consciousness is pure political garbage at best. Class consciousness without idpol is likely to be ineffective and end up failing. You need both. That being said sexual minorities can be ignored since they are such a small proportion of the population.

You need to fucking lurk more before posting.

It's called fighting for social justice, I just told you.

And you're using Youtube/reddit formatting. I figured you'd catch that after the first post.

sexual minorities are bigger than some racial minorities in some demographics. 16% of europeans between the ages of 14 and 29 identify as not exclusively heterosexual for example - thats a big ass number that might only get bigger with increased acceptance of LGBT people

Btw, I engaged you because I thought you were serious.

fam i dont use either of those sites, i simply use whatever im familiar with, muscle memory and all.

im not sure if youre actually understanding what im trying to say or if youre willfully ignorant. im talking about finding a new term for what is happening right now in liberal america, in which all focus is put on identities while capitalism is praised - if youre calling that "fighting for social justice" thats an awfully perverted expression. MLK and malcolm x fought for social justice and i wouldnt ever compare them to the kind of politics that is being pushed by democrats right now


i was until you told me to "get off this site" lul

MLK understood that economic justice precedes social justice. His last speech was about a garbageman strike and he was killed for his economic message not his "racial politics." His biggest influences aside from religion were Paul Robeson and Karl Marx.

The same can be said for Fred Hampton and a lot of the other Black Panthers. The government thought they were cute until they started talking about economic injustice.

I agree with the first part of your comment, but you should label it social justice instead of idpol. As far as sexual minorities, we should fight for everyone.


Then fight for all of them.

yes thats exactly what im saying, he saw the need for fighting the capitalist system in order to free his people (!!!

That is identity politics. No need to look for a "better" term. That its just fine.

...

...

but its not? the black panther movement is considered identity politics and socialist for example. i guess youre free to redefine the term for your own liking but dont expect to be understood by others if youre speaking your own language


yes and it can furthermore can be argued that class consciousness is just another form of identity politics based on class, im not really sure what youre trying to tell me with this unless youre trying to say the world of the 19th century is the same as the political processes and world of today, which would just make you plain ignorant.

I think the term you're looking for is liberalism

Why would you want to do that?

No it can't. Your material conditions aren't an identity. They are dynamic, unlike the color of your skin.

denial the post

It was already clear you're trolling. Not sure what your point is here.

Gee, I wonder who could be behind these posts.

As expected from tumblr. I don't even know why I engaged you. You're the type who disregards arguments based on the qualities of the person making the argument.

People like you are a cancer on the "left". Our kind will take the task of emancipating the working class while you lobby for a more diverse group of exploiters.

how is the irony not obvious to you

Seriously. After they said "brocialist", I was tempted to say that I'm a woman speaking against that term. It shouldn't fucking matter, which is why I didn't.

They're either just outright trolling or an actual liberal(which would make their popping up in this thread funny/expected).

Now I'm pretty sure you're just from Holla Forums.

quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors44/tmb/bobby-seale-quote-we-were-not-talking-about-the-average-white-person.jpg

Socialism and Marxism have always held up the struggle of the oppressed, including the struggles directed against the oppression of women and minorities. Just look up the socialists feminists at the turn of the century, the Russian revolution or those in the sixties, or the record of the communist party on race. Simple narratives about all these issues only coming together today with identity politics are just wrong. On the oppression of gay and lesbian people we have a mixed record that was positive, August Bebel fought the laws against homosexuality in 1898 and the bolsheviks legalized homosexuality, until Stalin basically wanted homosexuality obliterated. Although it is worth noting that when far left parties let down certain groups, it's often because they've abandoned the class struggle in general.

Identity politics was born out of the middle of the twentieth century, when far left parties and movements were much less powerful than they had been. Between an inability of socialists to play a leading role in some of these movements (although they were a big part of them) and the rise of more liberal and bourgeois currents, you got a false separation of the class struggle from other struggles. That applies as much to the person who denounces unions as part of the old boys club and says they should no longer exist, as it does to the socialist who thinks that maternity leave and ending the need of people to sell themselves isn't a core part of the reform/revolution fight.

This was partially because many felt that only they could advance their own struggle and speak for themselves. While this was somewhat the sentiment in the 60s-70s, when so much new thought and strategy was coming into the mix (a lot of it terrible) that you almost needed these separate groups to get through it all, but it greatly intensified in the 80s as people began to give up on alliances and revolution and mistrusted other movements. You also saw a lot of people move into the liberal sphere and muddy their radicalism (Gloria Steinem endorsing Hillary, etc).

There were two problems with this. One was that it was most difficult for people who existed at the overlapping junctures, black women, lesbians, etc. Anti black organizations that were sexist, feminist organizations that fed on racist tropes of black men, and generally failing to address many of the issues faced by people of different groups created serious problems, not to mention stratification and weakness. That's where intersectionality came in. It posited that people at these intersections of oppressed groups experienced the oppression differently and had to be considered themselves. Building on that, attempts to bring back some of the unity of the sixties as well as a new internal consistency is big now. Groups will consider how well they can capture the problems of "women," attempting to be able to liberate all women. Their practice, such as centering the oppression of the most marginalized groups, often becomes part of their theory. Feminism wasn't just an example before, it is the strongest intellectual tradition whose tools are more prominent today. Also worth noting is that in the neoliberal era the self and the individual has really taken over popular thought, and the individual and their identities as the basis for political analysis is in many ways a product of that. Not that that discounts it.
Here's where I think the problem lies. The issue with identity politics is not just that it segmented people. It was also that it incorrectly understood oppression in general. Older socialist and Marxist understandings of the world did engage with and include gender, imperialism, slavery, and so on. Marx wanted to abolish the family, he opposed empire and Lenin despised it with a passion, the communist party ran a black vice president on their ticket twice, set up many of the first integrated social and veterans groups in the country, and literally put "stop police brutality" on their placards, the question of the oppression of african americans was debated at the Comintern (with actual african american campaigners in conversation from independent groups), marxists were essential to the movement for women's sufferage, Luxembourg wrote about economics and political strategy but spent little time discussing gender besides criticizing feminists in her day (she is considered a feminist now but that betrays how she saw the issue at the time). But what set these understandings apart from what we see today, what we call "identity politics," is that it has a centering of the most oppressed and a theoretical separation of these issues. When I say separation I don't mean that they are totally separate, but that they are separated from each other and then put on equal footing with a bias towards the most stark. The old way of analyzing it was to understand it as a system. It requires careful analysis that inevitably placed these issues in a hierarchy of sorts and gave you answers that aimed to be scientific rather than just political. As an example you could take workers vs peasants. Peasant were in many cases more oppressed than workers, but it was thought that the way workers related to each other and the system made them more fundamental to the system and their oppression more fundamental to understanding and undoing it. Or that black workers were clearly treated worse than white workers in human terms, but their oppression was, from 1890-1965, more about using them and race to divide the working class than simply to extract from them. Or like how I as a Muslim am vilified, but more as a chess piece in the political machinations of my country than an actual effort to make me leave.

These answers are complex and not always intuitive. And you may have to say one oppression is more fundamental than another, and a better juncture for fighting the system and positing your alternative. Look at the falling rate of profit, which would indicate that capitalism loses steam because it really is running out of profits and needs to squeeze out more. That's an issue for a lot of workers, who want to support Keynesian politics and say they'll work of their own accord, but that's the problem with capitalism.

The point of all of this that I'm trying to make, is that identity politics is politics that treats identity as an end in itself and builds theory based on that identity, resisting theory that might not keep it in the center. Traditional socialism tackles oppression as a system, primarily based on capitalism, and understands it as such. It still engaged with blows aimed at women or minorities, etc, but it places them inside a wider framework. There is no "why should my revolution wait for yours," because our revolutions are not hand in hand, they are the same. There is one revolution, so if my understanding doesn't include the concrete oppression of minorities, and yours doesn't understand that race is a part of class, then we're both pretty off base. The old adage, "an injury to one is an injury to all," is a good way to inform practice while keep our feet on the ground in terms of theory.
And this is without getting into subjectivity vs universality (universality), post modernism (modernism), muh privilege (oppression), and all those other heated wonderful (terrible) debates.
But here are some articles that elaborate on different parts of this

isj.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-privilege-theory/
socialistworker.org/2015/05/14/fighting-racism-and-the-limits-of-allyship
libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell
libcom.org/library/limits-contemporary-anti-oppression-theory-practice
marxisttheory.org/the-new-left/
marxisttheory.org/socialist-feminism/
isreview.org/issue/81/black-liberation-and-communist-international

Here you go. :)

Someone cap this for me, please?

Oh, great, I'll just identify as a porky from now on. That will surely change my material conditions. Kill yourself, you fucking liberal shit.

What a world we live in

this

Please learn to use the correct terminology friend.

...

...

More like divided ideologically. And the big problem that is dividing them is …. you guessed it, identity politics! What a shocker.

That's like going into a boxing fight and saying you were too strong to win the fight.

...

...

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4irt9y/eli5_what_is_the_socialist_position_on_identity/d310g49/

It is.
They're not. Lebensraum and so on. Hitler/Trump "right" ethnonationalism is not tied to socialism, BLM and "left" grievance politics are neither socialist nor emancipatory.
Sure you can. You can achieve the material means for the emancipation of society without ever even being conscious of "identity." While destroying the material base of (genuinely) racist/sexist ideas and institutions will necessarily undermine them and make them obsolete, it's not some matter of parallel struggles to be waged in tandem. Culture is not some autonomous "ideas in motion" propelled under its own power to be "solved" in a vacuum. And nonsense slurs like "mansplaining" and "brocialist"only cover for intellectual and historical vacuity of this sort.

Don't tell me, now you're going to define class as an "identity."
The thing about idpol is not that it "deals in some tangential way with a socially defined group" but that it inherently accepts the false premise of bourgeois rule. "Pro-immigrant," "anti-immigrant," protectionist and "free trade" struggles are all responses to the fact that you, as a proletarian in country A, are in competition with the proles in country B. If capital outsources jobs to a lower cost-of-living area for cheaper labor in absolute terms, the home country "loses jobs." Rationally acting immigrants and guest workers attain a higher standard of living for themselves or their families at the expense of depressing the wages and bargaining power of the host country's laborers. The point, here, is that the existence of this zero-sum game that proles agitate within and bourgies must be mindful of in their tactical decisions, is itself a contradiction of capitalism, of global capital with the framework of nation-states it has outgrown. This competition itself is an entirely artificial one. It is a false premise. It is inherent not to nature but to the capitalist mode of production. Fighting for "immigrant rights" against those of native workers by its very nature disavows the prospect that immigrants and native workers alike need not be subject to this brutal competition with one another for an artificially limited number of jobs brought on by private ownership of the means of production and survival.

Read Frederick Douglass' Narrative. He has an excellent read on what actually causes working class racism. Trying to strike down such ideas and shaming people for harboring them ignores what causes them in the first place. It is diversionary politics of the worst sort.

Thanks, user!

Oh fuck me, he actually did it…

Wow, I'd heard bad things about that subreddit. Nice to see they've got some actual socialists, there.

Yeah I didn't want to directly link to the post because of the inevitable reaction of >PLEBBIT!!1

The subreddit is still shit though, that post is a rare exception to the rule

huh?


What do you think satire is for?

Sensitive Joss Whedon's Twitter has been nothing short of pathetic since 7 Nov at the least. Too much stuff to cap. Seriously, just go and look.

True, I've seen enough screencaps from there. Thanks for sharing that, though. It was the perfect response.

Joss "Race issues distract from gender issues" Whedon is still on twitter? I thought he got chased off?

I think they're talking about how bad idpol has poisoned things. The alt-right love to say that lefties are all idpol idiots, so when people see anyone speaking out for class consciousness they assume they're just idpol idiots.

People like pic related have helped muddy the waters & outright mislead people.

IIRC he came back soon after he managed to somehow piss Marvel off. It seems to have freed a lot of his time up for some reason.

It's a fairly mixed bag, but most of the hostilities between Holla Forums and r/socialism are blown out of the water when it comes to Idpol. They don't realize that they're saying practically the same thing.

For the majority of users on both boards, there is agreement that class is not the ONLY issue and all other issues will be solved with the destruction of capitalism, but there is also agreement that other forms of oppression cannot be fully destroyed without the destruction of capitalism. The general opinion on both is that the abolishment of capitalism is key for every struggle against oppression, but that does not mean things couldn't be better now.

Each group has their 'extremists' for lack of a better word, with Holla Forums having nazibols and anti-gay tankies, and r/socialism having special snowflake liberals rping as socialists, but most are either shouted down or ignored.

The conflict comes, ironically, from how each board chooses to identify itself. Because Holla Forums is made up of channers, its userbase is made up of former right wingers from Holla Forums. Because of this, they have a fiery hatred for the use of identity politics in liberalism, and willingly take on the title of "Brocialist" or "anti-idpol" to show this. On the other side, r/socialism is made up of former liberals who came to socialism through social justice and support for liberal identity politics. When they hear brocialist, they think of a socialist who ONLY sees class as the issue, and doesn't bother with other struggles, and is therefore being counterproductive to the movement. They then choose to identify themselves as anti-brocialist and pro-idpol.

r/socialism's perspective and the fundamental misunderstanding can be pretty clearly seen in this post, below the post seen here
reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4irt9y/eli5_what_is_the_socialist_position_on_identity/d30nf2l/

It's sad to see sectarianism and pointless argument destroy the possibility of a unified left on the internet, but I don;t see it stopping anytime soon. The mods on r/socialism have taken it a step too far recently with a new 'anti-ableist' policy immediately banning posts that contain words like 'dumb' or 'stupid', in an effort to show that they aren't willing to put up with 'Brocialists coming to subvert the revolution' or whatever they believe, and Holla Forums has a small but vocal minority of vaguely racist and sexist posters who shut down any conversation about identity(for example: )

Oh well, organizing and revolution can wait while we squabble about something most leftists already agree on.

I think the idiots that are screaming idpol everywhere are so loud that most people even on social media just group the entire left together. Because all establishment leftist parties in Europe preach for identity politics, refugees and Islam.

Alt right points at those idiots, then puts everything even remotely left with those, yes that does make it worse. It's still pretty embarassing that in my country all left leaning parties are identity politics parties and even the right wing ones ( I'm from Netherlands ).

How was his post racist or sexist?

...

This post specifically is not really, but it highlights the near immediate hostility to any form of identity politics that some users have on this board.

Better examples I could find without much digging

Most of the time they're probably Holla Forums trolls, but if some redditor came her and saw them, they'd blindly assume everyone here was like that, causing them to think all anti-idpol brocialists are just nazis in sheeps clothing.

This is by design. Anyone who has watched atheism and vidya culture over the last five years can tell you how this plays out.

You have a predominantly male space on the internet. Some feminists set their sights on it as a domain to capture and turn into a propaganda arm for their cause. They infiltrate the space as friends, and then mimic the language of the group. Before long, they start to introduce language policing, and rules against sexual harassment, and so on. Then inevitably the feminist claims that someone "raped" her, or harassed her, or abused her in some way. At that point the community gets fractured between "white knights" and skeptics. The feminists claim control of the white knights, and do everything they can to destroy the credibility of the skeptics. Then viola, their capture of the "male space" is complete, and they have a new feminist arm of propaganda.

I watched them pull this on the atheist community (which became a shadow of its former self afterwards), and the vidya community (GamerGate). I heard they pulled it on the BDSM, Comics, Tabletop, and are trying it on the FOSS and Anime communities as well.

Every time they do it, a new set of epithets gets created to unperson the group of people who fought back. For you in the socialist community that is "brocialist."

This is how we are kept weak and unable to fight the real corruption and power out there. Feminists are the brownshirts of "porky" so to speak. Their job is to destroy solidarity.

The post you highlighted was actually me(the one you're responding to).

I'm neither sexist(I'm actually a woman, but that shouldn't matter) nor racist. I wasn't shutting down any conversation, I was targeting that at an obvious troll. They were the ones not trying to understand or participate in conversation. They were intentionally muddying the waters on socialism & identity.

I agree, most leftists already agree that racism & sexism are wrong, which is why this idpol BS is so poisonous.

And I wasn't immediately hostile. I was annoyed after trying to reason with them for so long, then realized they were intentionally being obtuse/trolling.

sorry for the misunderstanding. I get where you're coming from, the poster was pretty clearly a false flag, but to me it seemed like it was a bit of kneejerk reaction that seems all too common here in threads about race/sex.

You know when I see stuff like this and it's always a white girl and a black guy they're encouraging to mix. For a second I almost believe pol. Then I remember a man can only be so spooked.

You sound alt-right as fuck bruh

I mean…

Mate, come on. This is a common charge made without much support. I came here from social justice after I saw browbeating lunacy bury pushes for actual social justice in the atheist community and Occupy Wall St, and after the fiasco that was gamergate exposed the sheer contradictions and nonsense of idpol. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a fucking right winger to understand the history of the Obama era

We fight this nonsense slur every time it comes up


This so much


Or it's, you know, trolling. An ironic ruse.

Lmao, yeah, I was irritated.

But the image I posted does show well how capitalists/liberals can use identity politics to their advantage; not really caring about those actual issues.

the reason /r/socialism is shit is not because their user base comes from a different background but because of the intense moderation going on there that basically bans anyone not agreeing with the party line

You're blind if you think idpol was only localized to the socially liberal factions of shit like gamergate.

I know that image is bait but I'm still triggered


you forgot your nazbol flag

Why is this though? Why is it that the web is, or at least perceived to be, a masculine arena? Why are most anons assumed under the masculine? Why is it that "female" agency on the internet is either emphasized (in terms such as femanon, vs. the gender neutral user), or why is it equally as omitted, that most women don't care how their gender is perceived on the web?

Because women dont DO things

Fuck off.


Did I say that? No?

Would rather have things DONE to them, I guess ;3

Yeah, not all of us are from Holla Forums. I went through my libertarian/ancap phase when I was younger(around 2006), but I found Holla Forums from just being a channer in general, around a year & half ago. I've never been a Holla Forums poster. But I reckon many did come from there, since it was the main "political" board.

I hate the term brocialist because it was used as basically a slur like "Bernie Bros". It's used to shut down conversation. The fact it suggested that women aren't involved in socialism or something. It's just a confusing, stupid term to use.

my theory: men tend to be more aggressive in how they behave and it turns people away since most people dont like dealing with shit throwing monkeys, the internet as a medium makes it easier to behave aggressively without social consequences, ergo people who are more aggressive in nature feel more welcome their. basically explains Holla Forums as well and why its a cesspool of failed white young men who need to direct their testosterone at something

It was heavily implied, and the fact that you identify with gaming and atheist """"""culture"""""" really shows where you're coming from

New Atheism is reactionary as fuck. If what you say is true then I am very happy.

brocialist is more like mansplaining. the idea behind it has merit but the way in which it is used is… not productive most of the time

No, women just are not commonly the origin of any action, be that shitposting on wherever we are, or taking up arms to change things, or making changes to any sphere they belong to.
In common experience women are just not acting forces by any definition.
$0.02

>:[

Lets quibble over who gets to be deemed a 'socialist' for 10 posts

i mean just look at the last couple of posts here and you can see why it has merit


thats reddit tier humor

Also

0/10 would not have discuss theory/have sex with after a night of drinking.

It should be obvious that those are most likely Holla Forumstards.

The mods of r/socialism are from the vocal minority of liberal idpolers who actually bother to participate in mod elections. However, it's pretty clear from the comments and discussions, most people on there aren't like this.
Except for the people that willingly choose to embrace it

I've yet to have a socialist "mansplain" or use their sex over me. I mean.. What?

This is what it looks like:
youtube.com/watch?v=nucx1L1MkPo

This is how I always see it on this board. A lot of people with an honest willingness to have discussion hamstringing each other with buzzwords and vernacular.

it happens, i hear it from my gf a lot

He sure tried. And getting so many people pushed to the actual left & more involved in politics is a revolution, for burgers.

Holla Forums leave already

Hilarious & convenient, all of this obvious false flagging of "brocialists" after the topic comes up.

You're so transparent, Holla Forums.

this video is so triggering especially the middle part jesus

Nice meme. Though, your answer does seem very plausible.


Let us not fret over definitions then lest they become only a hindrance to real, collective action. Let us do away with both the language cleansing of liberals, who strive to fret as much as they can over speech rather than material circumstance, and the ideological signification that has only a superficial resemblance to social phenomena.

youtu.be/nucx1L1MkPo?t=202

Holla Forums in a nutshell

That's rich.

Meint gott. This is terrible. This is why the left despises identity politics. Focus on the goddamn task at hand; not squabbling over unproductive nonsense.

this was pretty kek worthy not gonna lie

Like clockwork

the only Holla Forums here is you screaming "shill"

Yeah, watching idiots drown in ideology & be distracted by idpol is hilarious, amirite?

Lazy.

No, it wasn't. You're just chomping at the bit to find fault with me.
In fact Holla Forums exploiting a culturally libertarian consumer revolt against cronyism, language policing and censorship of the arts by injecting its own propaganda calling for purges of "degeneracy," carrying on the same line only against its own bêtes noires, is a big part of why it failed to find meaningful left-wing political expression.
As it turns out, when you inundate an entire community for years with unfounded accusations of racism, sexism, inherent invisible muh privilege, exclusivity, and oppression, and double down when they have the nerve to defend themselves, the genuine racists and sexists tend to gain ground. Go figure.


Do better.

There's actually a word for it, neotribalism.

Serious, honest, non-trolling answer? Because we are animals which evolved into two, distinct, biologically different versions of ourselves called "male and female." Why do little girls prefer nurturing little dollies growing up? Why do little boys prefer playing cowboys and indians?

Put another way, we are born with predispositions rooted in our differences. It only makes sense, then, that all things being equal there would be a difference in preferences for things like computers, internet, and social networks.

Also, pay attention to the fact that I said "predispositions." I KNOW that there are outliers out there. There are men who are extremely nurturing, and women who are extremely masculine. These are the exceptions, of course.

That's the honest answer.

We can quibble over what should be, but that's ideology.

I'll tell you why these cultures "broke down". First of all gaming has ALWAYS been utter fucking trash, commercialized rubbish. Writing, story, voice acting, all just bottom of the line, always has been. The type of people you get form around the culture in itself is already going to be pretty low I Q because of the immaturity and just plain poor quality of the medium.

You can actually see this as being the entire impetus of gamergate; that entire conflict would not have existed if autists weren't triggered by the smallest and most innocuous things. Anita Sarkeesian's videos didn't 'ruin gaming', Holla Forums's propensity to overreaction/hyperbole as well as its collective low I Q fooled you into thinking gaming was 'ruined'. Same could be said with the neo-atheist movement, although I know far less about this.

Great post comrade, but

>marxisttheory.org/the-new-left/
>marxisttheory.org/socialist-feminism/
These links are dead. Do you have PDFs that you can upload?

New Atheism was already dying. Gay acceptance had basically killed it by the time feminists joined the fray.

Condescending to strangers for the sake of your insecurity with your intelligence is one of the better ways to make enemies.

I'm sorry to say that this flaw runs rampant in the left. You can almost certainly tell a person's alignment by how smug and condescending they are in their language. It's sad, really.

Who is that superhero?
She's more annoying than scrappy doo.

kys

Now watch the hordes of triggered faggots shouting out loud that those differences are all due to pure social constructs and that biology is a lie.

Yes, but I wonder how much of it is due to more than just what is perceived as the result of organic processes. Instead, I see something culturally conditioned in the way in which what aspects are chosen for analysis how one interacts with the subject at hand, when we decide to move from one point and depart to another social fixture. You see how even the way you are presenting your opinions, and the fantasmatic-rhetorical modes cohere in framing the frame of your reality. Žižek once said 'if you take away from our reality the symbolic fictions that regulate it you lose reality itself,' and I believe that is transparent here—look at the reference to commodities, dollies, and the more athletic forms of play, cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, et c. Of course, even with the topic of more modern technology we see can this 'gendered' distribution, but, as we all know, no one is born knowing how to code in C++, nor that they own the means to work with such a program. To add a final note, I think advertising agencies are very aware of this, and if one is a parent, one should be wary of what one let's their children watch; all manner of disturbing rituals and unsafe practices are displayed and even endorsed in the commercial industry.

Condescension is present in the left & right.

>>>Holla Forums
We're not obsessed by gender like you are.

thats really spooked and you haven't studied child psychology. Read Piaget and Vygotsky, you realize children don't even have a conscious affiliation with gender until around the age of 3

skinwalker.jpg

inb4 accussations of idpol but i find judith butler to be pretty interesting in her deconstruction of gender and gender identities


those arguments are pretty shit tier, there is no basis to assume that girls inherently prefer to play with little dolls and boys with cars or stuff like that and you know it. i would agree that it is a reasonable assumption to make that men and women have different behavioral tendencies based upon their hormonal balance and stuff like that but youre making pretty reactionary statements there. hell when i was a little boy i preferred playing with dolls and i turned out pretty "heteronormative"…

Nobody on GG has ever claimed that. Anita is a scam artist, and so were Literally Who 1 and 2. The problem was that gamejournos started pushing shit by their friends and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. People already knew gaming media was biased and paid off, but this is what brought it to the forefront.

This is exactly what Holla Forums says lmao
I mean, there have clearly been good games. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was a real gem, and there are more like it from that era, when it was more strictly an innovative artistic medium than a formulaic, mass commercialized entertainment one. The exact same thing is true of film, on something of a larger and less contracted timescale.
The entire point being the divergence of private profit and social need finds its expression there. And the audience is cognizant of it, albeit at a rudimentary level.
No, but the entire nascent consumer press calling the consumers morally defective boors for pointing out where she's wrong, illogical, inconsistent or arguing in bad faith might give someone pause for concern, and might lead them to consider what pressures are at work on the industry. Nobody's talking about "vidya getting absolutely ruined." That's an absurd strawman.
Do you say the same thing about Jack Thompson, when the religious right was on the warpath? People should just shut up and not express their feelings about nonsense that condemns them as human beings, because that;s just triggered autism, huh?
The extreme response to community criticism is every bit as much to blame, and I can't help but notice that's the crucial difference from the Thompson era. Gameinformer and mainstream Christians didn't shit on the "closet satanists" in gaming.
youtube.com/watch?v=KmkXCsqJee0

I should just leave you with that, because you've clearly done the most to torpedo your perspective here.


Butt out Holla Forums I've got this

Doonesbury pic is true though

Damn. I came for liberal cringe; I got liberal cringe. I shouldn't be this disappointed.

WEW

Sorry, but you're really barking up the wrong tree here. First of all, biological wiring isn't limited to what's conscious. This is pretty obvious, considering all the specialized rolls of all the various lower animals out there.

Women and men run on different biochemicals, and their brains are wired differently. What I said was correct. What you wrote in rebuttal sounds like an attempt to ignore basic biology in favor of psychology and philosophy (which is a big no-no when it comes to epistemology).

Have to disagree with you on specifics. I have spent well over a decade browsing all sorts of conservative and leftist communities, and I can tell you leftists have the market cornered on this one. It probably comes from the fact that our universities are left-slanted, and so the graduates come out thinking that their political opinions have academic rigor and backing.

Culture emerges from biology, and after a point when sentience is reached there becomes a feedback cycle.


You're talking about the language-thought debate, right? Specifically whether language frames thought or thought frames language.

I hate to be so direct here, but regardless of how my argument you replied to is deconstructed philosophically, it remains objective, external facts that men and women have different physiology, biochemistry, and brain structures. How you go about expressing those facts doesn't change their existence, only the understanding of the facts changes.


That is correct, however if you break it down using a biological understanding what we are seeing is the result of emergence from many small, biological processes which govern the mind. This would explain why men and women have group preferences which differ from each other.

The modern American "left" really adopted it as their whole ethos tho. I remember back early in GG how prevalent their shaming tactics and self-righteousness were on the internet, and imagined if they were going to adopt them on a macro level i.e. elections. And they went and did it, the absolute madwomxn!

And they continue to shit up the thread, still. It's actually a Holla Forums poster role-playing as a liberal.

Oh fuck off. I am so goddamn tired of right snarking to any economic discussion "Oh you are rich? Why don't you give all your money to the poor?" or "Oh you are poor? Bitter and envious!" Same thing if you talk about the environment

Try to post on Holla Forums as a leftist & see what happens.

Again, rightists do this as well. Personally I don't care about GG, though.

The left/right, 1-dimensional spectrum is useless and misleading.
No university tries to produce Marxists. The critical theory and postmodernism so prevalent in western academia are p anti-marxist if you look at their actual philosophical foundations. They just have cosmetic similarities to Marxism which fool the right, which honestly is part of what the bourgies count on.

Since you think being snarky is itself a rebuttal I'll just have to remind you that philosophy and psychology do not trump the material sciences, namely biology.

In other words, biology doesn't care whether you think its "reactionary" or "heteronormative" or whatever other 2$ buzzword you conjure up is.

Biology tells us that men and women are physically very different. They run on different biochemicals. Their brains are wired differently. They have different physiology.

No amount of babble changes that.

However, if you accept the biological reality certain things start making sense, like why a woman can give birth to a child and man cannot. Why a woman's role is to care for that child while the man's role is to provide for them and defend them against predators, and so on.

Then after a real long thought, you might realize that even after all the monstrous effort by governments and schools to reach gender parity in politics, sciences, and engineering why it never seems to happen unless women are practically shoved into the roles. It isn't because of some dark cabal of men keeping them out, it's because women just happen to have different preferences. Just like men do.

lel

im saying there is no basis in biology to believe that. biology wouldnt even seek to answer this. feel free to prove me wrong though…

ITT: Holla Forums argues with each other

...

The right's version of this are Christians. If you are in a community without them, or are talking about a nonreligious topic then it will vanish.

As a very good rule, the right will mock you, yell at you, and chide you but not condescend to you.

The right argues more directly. It isn't pretentious. It argues like an underdog.

The left is different. They argue from a position of moral and intellectual authority on everything. That's because for more than a generation they have commanded the schools and managed to teach whole generations that their beliefs are not just opinions, but moral and intellectual fact.

I just gave you that basis in biology. You ignored it for the sake of ideology.

Not him, and I don't exactly disagree unless you're talking about "hard" determinism, But you should start posting literature reviews and meta-analyses instead of talking points.
Merely repeating that there is some difference out there in the ether isn't useful and doesn't explain, mechanistically, what those differences are or their precise scope and nature.
We still haven't solved the hard problem of consciousness, you realize, so at best you're limited to more heuristic methods and conclusions.

How about you guys take your biology discussion to another thread?

Also

I meant: Also, no one cares.
This is supposed to be a liberal hate thread. Take your other conversations elsewhere. Holla Forums would be more like it.

I really don't understand Beyonce love. I mean I get that people like her as they do other pop artists, but the ascendance of her as if she has has some great well spring of substance has always confused me. She wasn't even the best singer in Destiny's Child and that's saying something because they were all average as shit.

Her supposed "feminism" is gold digging songs and telling men they suck after the relationship is clearly over. A lot of female country artists have been making these same shitty songs for decades, I don't see anyone calling them feminist icons. Her music is more reactionary and conservative than most money grubbing pop artists in that sense.

I think the best explanation for this that I know of is, IIRC, Matt Taibbi's attack on Alan Greenspan, of all people. Basically, celebrities used to receive fame for something they actually did, but Greenspan was the first person to realize that the modern celebrity is famous simply for being famous. The celebrity obviously profits from it, and modern media profits too because it's newscycle fodder. A lot like the idol phenomenon in the East.

Who /rulesforradicals/ here?

Why does it say the board is dead at the top of the page?

Nobody tell him. It's classified as a matter of board security by the All-/leftypol Memetic Defense Soviet. Thank you for your cooperation.
t. LT Johnson, PROINTELPRO

In the face of what's wrong, even your own failures, you would have to do the changing of understanding yourself, therefore challenging what had existed and what will exist. Here is an alternative perspective on 'brain structures': pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract

Maybe but I find that she in particular gets a bunch of a praise and adoration that seems completely foreign to what her actual musical output entails.

I think that mainly happened after that "Black Power" performance at the Super Bowl, that FOX lost their goddamn minds over as "anti-cop & deeply triggering and problematic".

I watched those knife videos a couple days ago and I almost died of a heart attack every time his fingers went near the hot knife.

Maybe the Nazis are right after all.

Yugoslav post = best post

...

All this fucking classism in one picture

...

the berlusconi analogy is the least incredible one there tbh

Is this real?

That third one wasn't even a Trump thing but some Latino white girl in spicistan doing """performance art"""""

Fuck off Holla Forums.

twitter.com/gynostar/status/740368802282512385

reddit.com/r/LibCringe/

Made a board for all this shit to be posted and cataloged.

Man, that whole internet movement is meme-worthy

do it yourself

Internet is a STEM creation. There more men in STEM than women.

Threadly reminder.

while not liberal it's still cringe
youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4
rly makes u think

Reddit is IDPOL central, that's going nowhere.

...

Twitter whores can't even be bothered to check over their own 140 character posts before making them

...

wow good thing the International Workingmen's Association is still around, ESPECIALLY THE AMERICAN BRANCH!!!! xD

Barely exists and are borderline shitposting flags, Holla Forums is gay as FUCK and no one here takes Nazbols or tankies seriously.

My problem with is the mods(can't say stupid or banned! xD) and the ratio of liberals LARPing is way too high.

I swear, anyone who uses that meme unironically is a retard.

I

They're anfem flag tier, its quite funny.

Yes, I much prefer Holla Forums where we have edgy SocDems LARPing.