Fuck intersectionality

The problem is it proves the Nationalists point, there is a visible deeply triggering and problematic philosophy being pushed as a justiceable remedy to the problems of a growing population. When the demographics flip is the philosophy going to change?
Liberals do not want to recognise it, and call people who point it out crazy. Where do people go after that, to places they can discuss it, and they become radicalized.

Jesus I'm taking a into-level comparative politics course this semester and if it turns out to be that bad I'm just fucking dropping out.

I came from Holla Forums, so I know what you are talking about. Personally, I am sick in class being thrown together like some monolith, especially in the USA. There has been a huge increase in shitposting here recently so my post was a dickish reaction. Whether it be
we still have these threads multiple times a day, even my drunkass can see that. We need some theory threads that'll push the liberals more to the left but you can argue that's the same worthless bullshit over and over again.
The thing is that most socialists are all caught up into intersectionality and idpol to the point that to them those concepts are integral to the left. If we talk about reducing idpol to recruit the right/reactionaries then we have to address how we can reduce it in the left. Not only that, but we make reducing idpol a force that increases the capability of the left to unite the working class against divide and conquer

Of course it will, the curriculum is the first thing they target, there is no will to resist the Intersectional grab, and they keep getting more funding and more people fired or disgraced. A musty old Marxist or just a good professor with a backbone is easy prey.

So uh… your 'intersectionality' here pretty clearly isn't

kek'd

No, stay in it and vociferously assert materialist class analysis at every opportunity

OK, let's run with a cage metaphor. To create an opening you can escape through you have to destroy bars that are adjacent to each other. Race and class are adjacent bars in that racial division undermines working-class solidarity. In the history of what has become the United States, it wasn't the case that somebody invented racism and then you had slavery. Rather, racism came out of slavery as a justification for it. Less dramatically, I have been seeing Spaniards and Greeks bouncing in and out of the category of whiteness based on how their country has been doing economically. Likewise, the Japanese are basically considered white now. That's certainly not due to genetics. If I had the view that this mutual reinforcing of racism and classism was roughly equal strength in both directions, the metaphor of adjacent bars would work very well, but I believe that the influence from class to race is stronger. How about this: Let's represent class by two or three adjacent bars and race by one.

Then there is no true intersectionality.

Show me any serious discussion of intersectionality which includes the oppression faced by non-offending pedophiles, necrophiliacs, or other people with ultra-taboo sexualities.
Intersectionality tends to stop at the edge of what is deemed socially acceptable in liberal circles.

audit it whenever you feel like it, and they will never know. just say 'materialist class analysis' and confuse the fuck out of your teacher for a laugh.

everyone should know class is most important, but some ppl can also experience a few more negative things like racism, but those usually come out of capitalism anyway.

just drop the class and move on

Essential reading:

thecharnelhouse.org/2017/08/28/american-thought-from-theoretical-barbarism-to-intellectual-decadence/#more-44572

thenorthstar.info/?p=11299

thenorthstar.info/?p=11411

thenorthstar.info/?p=11425

leninology.co.uk/2011/11/cultural-materialism-and-identity.html?m=1

The right is full of idpol too. Are there even any anti-idpol rightists like we're anti-idpol here?

…The lolberts who aren't closet fascists?

yeah, generic basic bitch conservatives / """moderate""" republicans who just want tax cuts and don't give a shit about social issues

So basically just the rich ones.

Holy shit fam this is exactly the kind of article I was looking for. I am sick and tired of Burger and Anglo global hegemony with their cancer that has been leaking (for far too long) into the intellectual circles of the country I reside in. The biggest problem with it is that even those who argue against it adopt their language and it effectively becomes akin to two children arguing over how does the monster under the bed looks like.

Since we are on the topic I might as well post my own encounter:
>most I could do is tell them to google Bookchin

The weakest point I've noticed while arguing with them is that they have no solid theory of oppression. It's akin to what the professor in OP's post described it, as if it's some mathematical formula by which you can "calculate" your oppression.

I half wonder if it's worth it going to universities and just pretending to be a student so you can talk about how bullshit intersectionality is.

You'd probably get lynched, bullied or ass whoped by antifa.

I doubt Antifa would be out for your blood if you replaced it with talk about how the real struggle is class struggle.

Reminder that everyone who tried to bring class consiousness in US college failed miserably. It will be no different with you. Unless you are the second coming of lenin

The fact it was suppressed in the US doesn't mean people didn't take in the message.

Yeah, it's fucking gross. The same shit happens even between leftypol and pol.

Oh and I'm glad you liked it by the way. I just happened to come across it the other day. If I hadn't seen this thread I was thinking of making one for it.

I don't understand the problem. it's an actual fact that women are opressed because of their sex/gender and men don't experience that type of opression ("feminine" men experience some sort of hatred of women as well, homophobia is rooted in hatred of women too)
it's also a fact that people of color suffer oppression that white people don't experience.

I don't get what you're complaining about…

But that's the point. To provide an easy to control "opposition" against diffuse abstract concepts based on low hanging fruit appeals to emotion.You tell every group you include that they are special snowflakes and their problems are unique, then leave them to tear each others throats.Or maybe you gain mediatic prominence until your neutered "holier than thou" IDPOL horseshit gets to claim the de facto opposition status.

It's the "war on X" of political ideology. It's designed to go nowhere ,to channel otherwise useful discontent and only fools get invested in it, usually by tugging at their bruised egos and promising them easy solutions to their real or imaginary problems.

Post evidence.

Yeah, this is a problem I've seen a lot as well, but you articulated it better than I could. It's especially hard to resist because they'll use words that have a common usage, but they'll use them in a technical sense. They draw people into the trap by confusing them over what they mean. E.g. they'll talk about "whiteness" or "white people" meaning the social constructs or the ideas associated with the category. But to a layperson or someone out of their loop those words are understood to mean "the quality of having white skin" or "the people who compose the category of white people." It doesn't help that the idpol rhetoric seems to be designed to exclude context clues that would help clarify the meaning of these terms (or even to suggest that the correct meaning is the common usage).

you don't think hatred of women exists or are you just trolling?

...

1. "oppression" is ill defined
2. she seems to be suggesting that it's anything coercive, in which men qua men absolutely do suffer some oppression
3. to suggest that men and white people don't suffer any oppression is class erasure

Not him but hatred of someone =/= oppression. Hatred of men also exists, but you don't think that makes them oppressed, obviously.

pic related, peters on the left, mercator on the right

...

this seems a weird link of attack against intersectionality, since the whole point of it is understanding how different forms of oppression, yes including class oppression, coexist and are sustained and perpetuated.
a worker who is white and a worker who is black, while both suffer for being workers, the black workers suffers from racism in addition.
a black worker and a black bourgeois, while both my suffer/have suffered from racism, the black worker has suffered it in a much more serious and horrible way than the black bourgeois because of his class.

I don't see how can anyone object to this other than you're being white or man and don't want to be told that you have it better than another person because of your color/gender.

it's not individual hatred. it's institutionalized sexism that women face in work, school, home/family, streets etc.

To put the problem succinctly: you're conflating discrimination and exploitation
Then you're an ideologue

Honestly this post perfectly exemplifies how intersectionality leads to cultish ideology. It seems like such common sense! How could anyone deny it!? They MUST be irrational or else why would they!? The world is simple!

I said oppression not exploitation.
again, the point is that women suffer from systemic discrimination in all walks of life. how does that not qualify as "oppression" now?
try explaining how without shifting the goalpost to "exploitation" which no one mentioned.

I mean you're latching on my being surprised at people in a supposedly leftist forum having hard time comprehending the idea that women and people of color face certain type of oppression that men or white people don't, and taking it to mean a "cult" to dismiss my points without actually engaging

You can call it that if you want, but why would you? Forget about the word "oppression". It's vague and misleading, and mushes together concepts that are actually quite different.

Are you new or something? This is fucking Holla Forums. "A supposedly leftist forum" - so if we reject your theory or ideology then we're not really truly Left? Of course, because as we all know to be as Left as Left can be you have to write off anyone who asserts the primacy of class as sexist and racist.

the idpol concept of 'oppression' is vague and undialectical. It relies on a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate suffering. Read this if you want a detailed book length critique of identity politics from the left. The guilt ridden psyche of the middle class white liberal is the invisible centre of identity politics. It's all about 'acknowledging oppression' and feeling bad for it, ie. an utterly non-political goal. The generic language of 'social justice' has come to inhibit a deeper understanding of the world. Notice how 'social justice' communities are not dominated by the most 'oppressed' but often by 'privileged' middle class people with cluster b personality disorders who simply know how to wield the language of 'social justice to their advantage and beat people over the head with it?

libcom.org/files/Wendy_Brown_States_of_Injury_Power_and_Freedom_in_Late_Modernity__1995.pdf

what does 'having it better' actually mean? people cannot be reduced to statistics, every human life is unique. The concept of 'privilege' was invented by Peggy McIntosh, a professional white 'diversity consultant'. I don't see why subjective acknowledgement of one's 'privileges' should be at the centre of leftist politics. imo this can make people miss the forest for the trees. what if the system is wrong in its totality? focusing on 'privilege' leads to a race to the bottom, in which even the most meagre scraps, subject to diminishing returns under capitalism, are seen as undeserved.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

'Intersectionality' is not self evident common sense, but a specific ideology with its own history and theoretical assumptions.

libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

so the discussion was dumbed now to "why call systemic discrimination of women in all walks of life "oppression""?
fuck off I'm not interested in that kind of pedantry

except I didn't really say that. I said that it's surprising that people on leftist forum are unable to comprehend basic concepts of racial and gendered oppression, since the Left. historically, has been on the forefront of opposition to racism and sexism and offering a thorough understanding of those types of oppression within an anti capitalist framework

seem like you're attacking a strawman to be honest. I don't give a shit about guilty middle class white liberals, I'm talking about how we understand different forms of oppression and how they are regulated and organized under the capitalist mode of production.
recognition of sexism and racism as forms of oppression is absolutely essential in a socialist movement to prevent it from maintaining those structural discriminatory and oppressive forms.

my problem is that bros want to ignore those other forms of oppression, or in the very least view them as secondary and not as important. the "after the revolution" approach. this is destructive and will always prevent a genuine socialist movement that abolishes the present state of things

Yeah! Pfft! Who needs nuance! You've already figured out the world! Why else would Hillary Clinton agree with you!

Intersectionality was only invented in 1989. You really have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Cool.
Fucking redundant.

First of all, socialism is already anti-discrimination. Second, do you even have any justification for this? Seems like you're just assuming it - because you've dislodged discrimination from exploitation because of your stupid "oppression" concept.

A shitload - probably the majority actually - of Leftist critiques of idpol and intersectionality that I've read were by women and POC, and you insisting that this is some "bro" thing is a great way to do that erasure that you types love to complain about. Check out #BernieMadeMeWhite.
And it's also nothing to do with "after the revolution" because - AGAIN - that is to assume that there's some disconnected issues that need to be dealt with separately. The whole point is that they're LINKED.

All of these are by women and POC, you fucking bro

leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html
jacobinmag.com/2016/07/left-class-racism-identity-struggle-oppression
jacobinmag.com/2017/01/safety-pin-box-richard-spencer-neo-nazis-alt-right-identity-politics
seattleweekly.com/news/a-marxist-critiques-identity-politics/
viewpointmag.com/2017/03/16/identity-crisis/
versobooks.com/blogs/2970-not-us-me
medium.com/@ahaider/passing-for-politics-559e14c813f7
newleftreview.org/II/3/nancy-fraser-rethinking-recognition

No, it totally nullifies the meaning of class "oppression" . Intersectionality pretends that our daily life is just as much determined by economic relations as by abstract notions of "whiteness", "blackness", "femininity". This is simply not true, because capitalism is a universal and impersonal concept which defines the every aspect of everyday life. Different identities only work in relation, and are more or less defined by the economic system we live under. This is why intersectionality is happily embraced by many social liberal parties discounting the whole class part - I wonder why :^) and why many people using the intersectional approach are focused on unsignificant bs like Holocausts instead of actually helping oppressed people. That would require accepting capitalism as the real problem or at the very least providing some proper social democratic measures (for example providing cheap medical service to trans people, or actually helping poor black communities escape the cycle of poverty by providing work and a livinghood for them probably through seizing the MoP and providing work and a livinghood for everyone).

mlcroaggresslons was filtered to Holocausts
kek is this a new wordfilter?

But that's a totally banal point to make. Women also won't face issues that are by definition male issues. Humans won't face the problems faced by cats. And so on.
It's at best naval gazing.

But the point is that having systemic disadvantage is not the same as oppression. For instance a guy in a wheelchair has to take more time to go up a ramp than an ambulatory person takes to walk up the stairs. That fact doesn't make paraplegics oppressed. That's not to say that women have some inherent physical disadvantage compared to men. It's to refute the notion that systemic disadvantage = oppression.
The problem with intersectionality though is that it's reductionist here. There is no "black" identity. All the other ways that you can separate that person into their identities are different versions of blackness. A black woman and a black man are going to have very different identitarian issues that don't resolve all that well into a single "black" identity. A homosexual black man and homosexual black woman are going to have identitarian issues that don't resolve well into each other as a "black and gay" identity, nor would the "black and gay" identity resolve that well into the "black and hetero" identity to form a "black" identity. In the same way, "gay and black" people have very different identitarian problems from "gay and white" people. The way categories of identity break down are far far more complex than simple categories that you can represent using the basic logic of set theory. Instead of each additional identity applying new problems, what happens is more like each new identity fracturing the group even further. The reason why intersectionality fails is because it examines the surface level of identity and ignores the cultural mechanisms that form and shape these identities. It's forever caught in the tangle of these politics instead of cutting through them, as the Gordian Knot, and attacking the underlying conditions that shape and maintain these identities. And you get a secondary problem where even if you address and rectify these identities, the forces that formed them will go on and form new ones and you're back to square one.

People are very ready to explain their reasoning on the subject. I hope others will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think any of us take issue with the notion that some people have it better than others, and that we don't have it the worst. I think the closest thing to what you describe is the objection to the idea that male identity has no disadvantages associated with it, which is just plain false.

Then why did you bring up hatred as your argument? You're changing your story when I pointed out why the argument is flawed. Why are you putting forth bad arguments if you have better ones?

Anyone else that Black tranny got fired for saying ALL White people are racist? Dumb shit like that which helps no one and just alienates White people needs to be discouraged. At least the right can't cry "muh double standard" anymore.

Slave owners and slaves exist together, by definition they have to exist together. Likewise with Landlords and the people who pay them. You can't say a person is blind because people with working eyes exist. Intersectionality is the "theory" that these issues are all the same and that these conflicts are resolved by the better off person in the equation feeling vaguely bad about themselves and telling the worse off person to be proud of whatever (buy this t-shirt that says that having no eyes is actually really good).

bro you pay a bourgeois institution to grant you knowledge blocks which are valueless, thats where you're getting fucked. you need to drop out immediately.

Sorry you had to suffer through that mate.

I had to read a book that said that if Marx was alive today, he would be pleased with how well the state of China is organised, because Marx wants a big strong central government of enlightened individuals to rule over the masses.

Pushing a good thread to the top.

I've got a course this semster called "Politics and Popular Culture" which judging from the description is going to be the same kind of shit. I plan on powering through it and being a thorn in the side of the libshits all the way!

You really aren't.

Enjoy being incorrect.

This whole SJW thing is dialectics in action. It shouldn't surprise anybody that when you frame politics through the lense of identity that all politics will become identitarian. If people believe that they need to come together as a political bloc based on identity to have their interests represented, then that's what they'll do. They will come together in the name of white interests, black interests, gay interests, etc. The whole white identitarian movement is the logical outcome of SJW type thinking and politics. It gets even worse when the obvious double standard of saying that all groups deserve equal recognition then turning around and telling whites, men, etc that they don't deserve recognition or to conduct themselves in accordance with their identity. It's basically a recipe for turning impressionable or ignorant white people into Nazis, which in turn will drive younger non white people into the arms of Black nationalists, those retards that want the American southwest to rejoin Mexico, etc.

Thesis: white people are bad

Antithesis: white people are good

Synthesis: Race is a spook

Lmao

This is one bizarre thing I noted in a discussion once. I still don't know if they were joking, but it seems like at least a certain kind of intersectionality basically assesses a thing like racism as just one equal thing. Like, there's not really any acknowledgement that a black person and an ethnic Mexican living in the United States effectively face different forms of racism based on the different biases held against them, so anyone who's not white is just evaluated as being affected "by racism" and not to a particular degree or in a particular way. Like, to me, the fact that it's still socially acceptable to vilify Mexicans as a political tool fundamentally creates a rift there.

But really, I almost want to read about intersectionality… but based on my impression, I'm not sure what even makes it a "theory." Like, the idea that a person can be the subject of bigotry for multiple reasons at once? Not exactly fucking rocket science.

I've actually seen 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧cultural appropriation🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 arguments where an "alternative" suggestion came in for white people - to re-embrace the ethnic identity of whatever European country they came from. Initially it really did strike me as dangerously close to territory that's been dominated by "white identity"-esque movements for a long time - "hey white people, don't rap, play bagpipes!" And of course, most white Americans won't really realistically grasp old Celtic culture or whatever or promote it in their their everyday lives because it's kind of a fantasy. Not that I really reject the idea altogether - in fact, more people getting interested in the old folk culture of their ancestors would be great. But connecting it to racial identity like that is fucking dodgy.

Honestly the best way to do it is just to teach kids about different map projections. Show them both and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each. For lessons where a map is required, I see little reason not to use something like Google Earth on a projector.

I come from a "conservative" family and you're full of shit. They're very poor and their motto is basically "I just want these politicians to leave me alone"

Stop repeating liberal talking points about people who have been victimized by capitalism and don't know where to turn. People are often conservative as a reaction to the rotten corrupt state establishment that has destroyed lives all over the world and the country.

What white muh privilege i there. In society I don’t see any. Most people are anti-rascist. Hell there’s even affirmative action which wouldn’t happen in a society with anti-black racism.

you have the version for ants

Well, no. It wouldn't happen in a society where anti-black racism was seen favorably by most people, but it also wouldn't happen in a society which didn't used to be heavily segregated and white supremacist. It's fundamentally a reparative measure which exists to move society away from its racist past and prevent institutionalized racism in the present. This is also the reason it still exists, whether or not one agrees with it - we're still seeing a lot of the social, economic, and to some degree institutional effects of racism today and it was within living memory that it was much, much worse. People are afraid to throw away measures taken to combat it.

The problem with the idpol left in Western countries is that you're basically never going to get rid of it. Putting aside sexual minorities and radfems, I would suggest that "ethnic minorities", (in particular people outside of Northwest Europe), have a much greater degree of ethnocentrism and race-consciousness than whites. You've probably all been to a socialist, environmentalist, etc. meeting by now and noticed that you could've mistaken it for an Aryan Brotherhood meeting, as opposed to Holla Forums meetups that are full of delusional Hispanics. I think intersectionality can be reasonably understood as a strategy for ethnic minorities to convince whites to give up a greater slice of the economic pie - in short, socialism for them is about expropriating whitey, they could care less about the finer details of Marx. Perhaps it's unsurprising that most third-world Communist movements were, in effect, national liberation movements.

As we've all seen, race consciousness can easily be used by bourgeois interests to stifle class politics. In this sense, trying to apply intersectionality and class politics simultaneously is akin to trying to swim up a waterfall.

Paging Hoochie

No, that's not how antifa works, tankie-kun.

You are missing the point. If you stick to the cage metaphor: the material of the whole cage is capital, and if you destroy one bar two other grow in its stead, class is the upper and lower half of the cage that hold the bars in place and the only way to liberation is blowing up the upper half.

...

For the Stirnerites out there
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics

Along with callout culture, Standpoint Theory is almost singlehandedly destroying the Left, once someone incorporates this logic into their everyday life it becomes like a cancer they can never really fully recover from, and it becomes a constant hamper on their ability to engage in debate and rational thought.

Wut? Bernie bro was a slur created by Clinton's because apparently all Bernie's supporters were men because they hated the fact Clinton had a vagina.

That imposter is not hoochieminh. Shes gone. Tripcodes dont match

Why do you guys hate black people?

...

...

you just proved it

the fuck is "class essentialism"?

It's a codeword for "I need to get back to reddit"

MORE BLACK TRANS-WOMEN CEOS OP!!!

It's all fucking stupid.
People should build new culture instead of constantly festering in the old.

The conservatives are the ones who are destroying their lives though, so it makes no sense to turn to them.

Sounds like neo-liberal intersectionality trying to trying to sprinkle catholic guilt to pander to minorities without actually doing anything for them besides giving them positions once held by the white establishment with less wages and benefits and guiltily whites into protesting against this. This plays into race resentment the capitalist are fond of creating. The capitalist wins and both parties lose. This type of stuff needs to be called out for what it is, a way to disenfranchise people for the benefit of the owner class. PoC's weren't fucked over by white people, they were fucked over by the capitalist class and so were "white" people. It's set-up in a more kinder version of the overseerer. Give a few yeomen an overseer position to look after the slave to give the plebs of the same color as us the illusion of power. Same way with cops, works with the minority itself, in holocaust camps the Nazis would elevate a select few of jews to oversee some in the camps. Capitalist have turned intersectionality on it's head by letting a few of the undesirables into positions of power over the plebs. Gives them the illusion of power and creates resentment and or the naive idea that the plebs themselves will be the overseer someday.

It doesn't matter if it's not all white people in the moneyed class. The whole system is set up to support white supremacy. Even if you're not white you can still support white supremacy the same way women can support patriarchy. Intersectionality helps this and it's why it's essential.

You dumb piece of shit. If you don't know history you're doomed to repeat it.

go back to Holla Forums

Yes it fucking does you idiot. Have you never heard of the word "ableism"?
That doesn't matter you fucking reactionary. Everyone knows "we're all just people,man" you fucking hippy but white people see it differently which is why there is a black identity. It's formed from how the oppressor sees you not what's reality because oppression shapes your reality.

That's exactly my point, neo-liberalism thinks that it can solve the jewish question by diversifying the elite while conservatism thinks it can solve it be making the elite one race. Race is a social construct, doesn't matter if I'm the same skin color as the elite under neo-liberalism. I'm still a prol but maybe with a few added muh privileges. Under conservationism if I'm a prol i'm just a failed white and become a new minority. Ethno whateverism just starts eating it's own as it finds new minorities to fuel the ownership class, today it's the Mexicans, tomorrow it's brown eyed people, after that is green eyed people.. Neo-liberalism is self-sustianing in a sense as that it maintains it's scapegoat rather than eliminates it.

Yes all white people are racist in some degree. Think of it like a pool that we're all in and racism is the water. Everyone gets touched by it whether you want to or not. Sure you're not actively racist, no one is saying you're Bull Conner but other racist will help you and not people who don't look like you.

what's with all the redditers lately?

This.

And then a kid stood up, shot the lecturer and declared the class a soviet republic — and everyone clapped. Little did they know, that young boy was actually Lenin.

It took me a while to interpret this image.

It's a duck-billed platypus.

what are 'patriarchy' and 'white supremacy' exactly and can they be really separated from capitalism? intersectional discourse tends to vagueness and an excessive focus on subjective feelings. It's all about one's personal quest to atone for 'racism'.

also there's the emphasis on 'racism' as a subjective personalised evil that must be combated by each individual and can never be wholly eliminated, imo it sounds much like the protestant struggling with Sin. The United States' culture owes a lot to Calvinism, which may explain the shape taken on by american 'idpol'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

It's not about atoning for racism. It's about ceasing your racist activities.
Unfortunately pretty much all white people are massively racist in everything they do. They'd have to change every aspect of their lives and personality to stop being racist.

Sounds more like the Jewish teachings towards the goyim, they're bad and all they can do to remedy this is displaying submissiveness (being an ally).

that sounds rather lifestylist and even anti-Marxist, not to mention self centred. It's all about the righteous bourgeois white person's conscious decision to 'end racism' somehow. 'Social progress' is never a result of the moral progress of the ruling classes, but of mass mobilisation from below. Read Marx' The German Ideology

marx was a pretty pure guy

'authentic' traditional culture is incompatible with capitalism. when USA white nationalist try to LARP as volkisch they end up embarrasing themselves. Same goes for most middle class idpolers, some of which insist on posturing as oppressed and using obviously exaggerated ghetto/spanglish slang despite being massively muh privileged themselves and often indistinguishable from white people.

Pol cuck detected

Reminder that replacing White Man's Burden with White Man's Fault is still liberal tripe.

classical liberals are anti-idpol
also neocons like Ben Shapiro

pick one

That was the right thing to do, it sounds like a fucking torture chamber.
It would have been a good opportunity, but I fear you might end up being sucked by their ideology.

Richard Seymour's come a long way, given he was one of the people who popularised a lot of IdPol back in the day.

I like this post the best so far, but in reality it goes past idpols creation. After all, wasn't Nazi Germany like idpol in emphasizing the injustice of the Versailles treaty and struggling for Germans as an oppressed group?

In that way you can see that idpol comes up because of the workings of capitalism just like
white supremacy.

IMO the only way out is through. As a rich white man idpol presents me personally with challenges, since people rationalize petty power politics with the righteous cause of justice as described here

Which leads to this perspective here

The thing is that it makes sense. If you see it as white people doing all this to you, of course you hate white people. You know, in the way that you low key hate people like Louis CK in line at the bank when u go out. Just watching people go about their pointless lives and they're fucked up in ways they don't understand and don't care about. It's infuriating. The problem is that its ultimately relying on a division in the world you're officially against in order to structure your understanding of how to change it.

I think what's missing is a space with a clear set of norms. For instance, if (again, as a rich white person) some PoC has specific demands in order to start talking, then they should be clear as well as how I can acceptably criticize their ideas. Without spelling out exactly what the expectations are, it is impossible to have a fair conversation. How can the least muh muh privileged person hold the most muh muh privileged person accountable, and how can the most muh muh privileged person hold the least muh muh privileged person accountable? We have to have both of these questions answered.

This is important. If racism is a pool and we're all in it, then PoC are in it too. Therefore saying all white people is racist is true, but you're leaving out that all non-white people et al. are racist as well. Not even against whites- since the system is white supremacy, you going along and not committing suicide is participation in white supremacy just like white people. Is the participation different? yes. But spell that out don't just say "whites are racist" like people who have been victimized to a certain degree are innocent and infallible as a result.

See, this is actually right, but the point is that everyone's life has to change completely for our society to go from being racist to not being racist. Therefore I see all perspectives that have things settled as suspect.

The only way we will undo all of this is dialectically, meaning through sustained conversation (also through acts). None of us has concepts adequate to lay bare what is happening or reasonable and well intentioned people would not disagree.

Therefore I would say that people who want to talk about how white socialists are racist and people who want to talk about how anti-racists are still classist (or whatever) should still have some humility.

For example, [email protected] (don't wan to hit filter). The thing about it is, us pissing each other off is what stops us from being able to take off. There are millions of leftists in the US but we are divided. It's not because of idpol, idpol is the awareness of that division reflected through capitalism (as in commodified idpol, black guy in stars wars type of shit).

Basically i'd say to anti-idpolers that just because someone misuses a concept doesn't make the concept wrong. The thing to do is not to stop people using the word, but to clarify it and figure out how to actually stop pissing each other off all the time. If someone disrespects u because you're white, that's a Holocaust, for instance. Philosophy works through subsumption- you have to take into account everything your opponent is saying and explain it better. If idpolers are wrong about what it takes for white leftists to be ok, then how do you think we should take identity into account, and if its so clear why has the true way been derailed so long?

lol every thread dies as soon as i post

That's a really good painting.

zionism is idpol

This is an excellent point. A white person who benefits passively from white supremacy isn't necessarily any more racist than a person of color who suffers by it.