Lindsay Shepherd on /ourguy/'s podcast. He's already getting shit on twitter for even having her on

I hope this gets spicy

What are you talking about? The guy who was complaining was David Shaw, not Moufawad. Can you fucking idiots drop the ideological based smearing at least once?

Unlike that stuttering idiot Angela "eh uh IdPol left o-oline eh m-m-meme wars" Nagle, right?

Anyway, I don't give a shit about Zero Books. To create an entire platform as a spin-off of an already below mediocre book (Capitalist Realism) is retarded because you are per default obliged to engage with even lower pseuds than Mark Fisher was, who engage even more in "muh culture wars". I couldn't give a wet shit about a bunch of "leftist" bloggers with vaporwave aesthetics and popcultural references. Žižekism was a mistake.

she seems like a socdem mostly

Nah, he was bitching too.

And as far as I can tell, there's never been proof she mocked those students.

Oh ffs, there's already enough retards on the comment section.
What does Patreon Millionaire want to do on one tiny LeftCom podcast anyway?

literally who? and what?

some teacher lady got in trouble for showing a kermit video in her class and it was big news in canada

How bad are the comments?

this faggot

Muke is just a joke. Still I hope Doug calls out Peterson's faggotry.

He's not wrong.
She is pretty naive.
Her whole "there are aspects of socialism that are capitalist" bit made me cringe.

why do people know him again?
just some fag posting and talking on his youtube channel he must've linked, right?
why did people pay that cunt attention? don't you see what this does?

She doesn't really say what she believes in except for being 'left'. This makes is harder for Doug to catch her on anything. However, Doug gave her a warning not to poke a stick in the beehive. Knowing how this plays out, she probably will.

Marxist Humanists like ZB will always end up going full neocon eventually, because they believe the preservation of muh western values is more important than anti-imperialism. Zizek is going down this road as well.

Anyone who unironically promotes Kermit should be beaten to death.

what the fuck are you talking about

What's wrong with this? He's right

They need to be educated. Kermit has a highly obfuscating but erudite way of speaking that masks the pure bullshittery of his ideas, but also makes them seem smart and appealing to those who aren’t well read, which is most people.

Who the fuck is Lindsay Shepherd and why should I care?

Oh it's another retarded "aww conservatives are persecuted in the universities :🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧" whining session. You realize that it is a completely manufactured outrage?

Read this: hackeducation.com/2017/12/16/top-ed-tech-trends-free-speech

He’s a Nietzschean, he lusts after his own destruction. He’s going to get BTFO on ZeroBooks and he’s going to allow it to devastate him

...

This episode really brought back into sharp relief just how poisonous this whole idpol + bureaucratic busybodies are, a clear byproduct of the corporatizing trend in education under neoliberalism, where it is used as a disciplining tool.
In this day and age, if you use care/harm/safety-style arguments, you are a neoliberal.

That's the fucking point, the whole idpol whining about unsafe speech and whatnot only feeds into the already very large disciplining powers of the corporate-bureaucratic educational industrial complex.

well, sargon is kinda harmless
he is like a Jason's long forgotten centrist brother

Tom O'Brien is more /ourguy/ than Doug.

It seems like all zero books does on his show is criticize the left. Endless criticizing of SJWs and the left - if I wanted that, then I would be watching any of the shitty anti-SJW channels.

who the fuck here said that you fuckhead. go back to reddit PLEASE

How much of a surplus of chromosomes to have to be on to make a comment this stupid?

Fuck off brainlet.

The absolute state of leftism.

I tried to go all 2017 without learning who lindsay was. I even got a letter in the mail from her school. I just an hour looking all this worthless shit up. What a waste ive done with my morning.

that article is complete shit.

Tells you something that only the leftcom podcast wants to meaningfully engage with the biggest heads in the rising anti-SJW industry.

And since when is Lain a leftcom? Because he properly understands Marx and has absolutely no interest in defending any aspect of failed 20th century revolutions and the counter-revolutionary forms they took? "Leftcom" is a term that's long lost its meaning. Anyone who vaguely leans towards a Marxist-as-per-Marx understanding of things or overlaps with some ultra positions now gets branded a "leftcom". It's fucking pathetic.

Can't anymore /ourguy/ than getting a Holla Forumsack on his podcast and making a whole Q&A vid replying to our posts.

...

Savage.

...

this reminds me of one of milo's speeches where the justification to shut it down was that he was going to out undocumented students (or were they undocumented trans sutdents?) before his speech. but how did they know? it was just asserted so they could prove a "clear and present danger."

milo is a crypto-nazi, a snake, and a fraud who went to a secret april 2016 meeting with richard spencer, so fuck him. but yeah the outing thing never passed the smell test.

this is the best critique of liberal idpol there is.

The fuck are you talking about? Sargon literally says the exact same things as doug about the left and he it needs to reform. It's not informed nor is it original. Am I missing some deeper subtext here?

Tbh the best critique of the left comes from the Unabomber.

What does it tell you?

No he doesn't …
Sargon considers idpol to be radically leftist. Doug considers it barely leftist. Doug is correct.

Trots are the one who go full neo-con and only Jewish ones.

"Ruthless criticism of all that exists"*

*Not including anything left of center because they are part of our tribe

The Unabomber's thoughts on leftist seriously made me question my beliefs more than anything else.

I too remember when Sargon criticised zealous idpol moralizing for obfuscating class analysis and ultimately being sublimated by capital rendering it, by itself, completely ineffective as a vehicle for class war.

can I get a tl;dr up in this bitch?

I mean his critique is more of Red Liberalism than of what most people here believe, but the stuff on oversocialization was quite accurate to a lot of people I have had to deal with.

It's so funny to me that primitivism, the Unabomber and even Varg appeal to so many communists/leftists.

Too bad the right is nothing but a facade, a counter-leftism rather than an authentic force–always employing leftist tactics and thus letting itself become tainted, corrupted and ineffective.

Read Evola, you blood-thirsty weaklings.

...

cool , glad i peaked ur interest.
here u go

mega.nz/#F!8bQGiabA!ajSFr87c3Y4tailv33sl7w

I'd recommend starting with The Metaphysics of Sex or The Doctrine of Awakening

oh and sry for the unwarranted fedoraedgyness

wasn't evola the guy that said you gain spiritual powers by not jerking off.

what the fuck

Eh he identifies the leftism of his time (1995 America) as suffering from two main issues:

I) An Inferiority complex: which manifests itself in two main things; one over active activism for those who they perceive as inferior (although they will never admit to this) and self-defeating tactics (like attacking police so they get beaten up and muh moral victories).

I) "Oversocialisation": Aka a compulsion to enforce moralities and behaviors that he deems as upholding "industrial society". Now while I am not anti-civ, a lot of criticisms he has are sound and tbh any marxist should conceptualise how to solve.

Now he reiterates several times that this does not apply to all leftists, socialists, ect. but it does apply to a number of them. His critique, while quite simplistic on the surface is actually quite a unique way of viewing liberal politics in America at the time and today. In order to create an actual movement that abolishes the present state of things, avoiding the so-called "leftist psychology" of the Unabomber is a good thing to adhere to.

No those were the Daoists

You may be thinking about all the other great men of history who held the same idea.

I hope you're just ironically memeing.

If you're not actively conserving your seed you might as well just hit the gay disco and get on HRT
ASAP

It is/was big news in the Canadian media bubble. Proles up here are barely aware of shit like this, or even the existence of Peterson.

There's a saying up here in Canada that everything that happens in the U.S. repeats itself in Canada a few years later. Right now we're going through our Obama years. The idpol crowd bet all their hopes on Trudeau and when he turned out to be a massive shit they turned inward towards culture wars shit like this.

I wonder who our Trump is gonna be. I don't it's gonna be the dude from dragons den because he doesn't have Trump's idiot charisma.

*don't think

That's just Nietzsche

that makes a lot of sense, actually. get ready for prime minister doug ford in a few years.

If only Rob lived.

dont worry boiz Tory's just as fuckin stupid just without the buffoonery

It tells you Doug is intellectually honest and unafraid of debate, whereas most Leftists thrive in dogmatic sects.

No, he thought you gained spiritual power through rape. This is what Rightists actually believe.

I wouldn’t say agreeing with Peterson about Solzhenitsyn’s lies is intellectually honest and Lain has been a leftist long enough to know better. But if he does end up crushing Peterson good for him but I suspect that will be a bit like a 25 year old “crushing” an 8 year old in a fight.

That's a bit oversimplified. The oversocialization aspect is them rebelling against their oversocialization (since it causes them so much stress trying to always be pure and moral) through radically enforcing it and demanding society to do the same. That is to say, they take all the moralities and behaviors society thinks is good and says that society isn't radical enough in following them. Obviously this critique can't apply to people who actually do want to radically transform society and have no respect for its morals or behaviors, which is to say actual socialists, but it very much applies to radical liberals whose main concerns are causes society already thinks are good, like anti-racism and anti-sexism.

You're not wrong, and I know Doug used to be an Anarchist before he became a Marxist, but I also roll my eyes when his inner anarkiddie comes out. Aside from that I think this was a good conversation, and I like that Zero Books is one of the few places where Leftists are unafraid to defend freedom of speech without falling into the crypto-libertarianism of a place like Spiked. That said, Lindsey Shepard definitely acted as a useful idiot for the alt-lite, but I do think Doug points this out well without turing it into a cringy full blown "call out", i.e. struggle session. I'm glad at least some Leftists are willing to engage with the alt-right, and I actually think in some ways Zero Books is better equipped to handle this then someone like Contra who can't seem to fully commit to the Left.

No he thought have to chant ancient sayings and prayers while your city gets bombed to acquire the weapons metaphysical energies
Not even joking

Don't hate my superpowers, normie!

Do you think a ML channel would be afraid to engage with Jordan "read Solzhenitzyn" Peterson? Please kill yourself. The reason Peterson goes on an anti-communist podcast (Doug has praised crypto-fascists like Solzhenitzyn as well multiple times) is that they can both open up their bucket of shit over the USSR and other Marxist-Leninist states, and their "disagreement" will be completely theoretical and academical, it won't have the juice for an interesting debate, since even liberals can agree on that capitalism might end in the far future, they just think violence is bad and all that.

Also, he really showed himself to be ignorant on the topic by putting that Stalin quote completely out of context once again, go fucking read that book if you want to quote it, fucking dishonest scum. He also seemed to have forgotten his own idol Mark Fisher, who criticized the USSR for producing against the profit motive in the chapter "Market Stalinism". Way to go Leftcoms.

Evola got his spine shredded by shrapnel and was subsequently paralyzed because he thought it was a good idea to contemplate existence during a fucking allied bombing run. Truly a cuck for the ages.

gonna need some proofs for that claim

He said people should read Solzhenitsyn in his video on Jordan Peterson.

that's not an endorsement of him. We have a thread here right now about reading right wing theory

Full damage control. He didn't even say to read him critically, or read him to understand where right-wingers come from, he just said a leftist should read him because it's "important". That's an endorsement unless you think telling people to vote for Hillary Clinton isn't an endorsement either.

If you want to debate the right and refute people like Solzhenitsyn then reading him is important.

Tbf I am reading A Day in the Life and he is at the very least a good writer…

He didn't say the left should refute him. He just dropped the name as in leftist should read Solzhenitsyn in the exact same context Peterson said it - to declare the USSR a genocidal hellhole and to move on. Watch the video.

He fucked up there and you shouldn't defend him over that. Maybe he changes his opinion if he is exposed to more information about Solzhenitsyn and his book?

Honestly, besides Hitler many fascists turn out to be decent writers at least. You can enjoy every literature or art you like as long as it doesn't compromise your political opinion based on emotions (like it happens with Holla Forums)

Lain does endorse the Gulag archipelago for about 30 seconds but mainly so he can turn Peterson's own logic against him
youtu.be/uGld3FbDY6s?t=5m29s (Lain "endorses" The Gulag Archipelago)
youtu.be/uGld3FbDY6s?t=6m18s (Lain starts talking about Locke and liberals the way Peterson talks about marxism)

This is why Zizekianism was a mistake

The revisionism and western propaganda aside, even the staunchest ☭TANKIE☭s admit that elements of the USSR were no good. I admire the USSR, but some of the people on this board really take it to the extreme when they start to defend the nomenklatura and the corrupt.

not a ☭TANKIE☭ but the hundred million body count is ridiculous and the gulag archipelago should be refuted.

If we could just come to an understanding of what's true and what's not, that would be a good start.

The argument he uses was the same thing that made me critical of people who use the 100 million argument even when I was a liberal. If the American revolution failed to get off the ground and the French revolution was all we had to go by then these people would still be monarchists. Just saying "oh well Solzhenitsyn is a big liar," just makes you sound like a holocaust denier to people who aren't already left wing.

The thing is you can’t change popular consensus if you don’t challenge anti-communist orthodoxy head on. I’m sorry if it’s “bad optics” but someone does have to do it and it should be done more frequently.

The summary of the psychology of modern leftist the other user did is decent. This passage was what made me question my beliefs:

I definitely recognize this a lot in my self. I've rationalized it by saying that even if I am motivated in some sense by a will to power (not personal power hunger but desire to exercise my will to change society) than at least I am channeling that impulse in a right direction.

I'd highly recommend actually reading ted though. It's good to challenge your beliefs and his thoughts are quite interesting. At the very lease they are a quite accurate account of the motivations and psychology of idpol leftists. The oversocialization section in particular really explains the paradox of idpolers ie how they can claim to be in rebellion against the system while in reality being conformist sheep.

Read section 2, 3 , 4 and 24 if you're interested (table of contents down the side).
genius.com/Unabomber-the-psychology-of-modern-leftism-annotated

Could you respond to this and give us some proof? How is the world different than the way people perceive it?

I'll give it a go cos I'm watching Manhunt: Undabomber right now.
But again, from what you've quoted this is really just a re-hash of Nietzsche's analysis of slave morality. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'd resist attributing too much profundity (if any) to Kaczynski. I think he was sane and very intelligent but his worldview is lacking because he clearly isn't familiar with the literature (continental philosophy, frankfurt school etc.)

...

But then it says her memoirs might have been fabricated by the KGB. So it throws these claims into question. Wouldn't it be better to actually do historical research and compare it to the Gulag Archipelago?

You can't do historical research to refute it because it's just a bunch dramatic stories. It like trying to historically refute Herodotus, nobody knows if most of these conversations he writes about even occurred yet alone went the way he writes them. And for the KGB thing it's basically just a no u. Its saying Solzhenitsyn isn't propaganda, his wife is. So why should we believe Solzhenitsyn uncritically but be skeptical of his wife? Because the US tells us to?

We should be looking at reports from the places he was at and at historical sources to tell us what is true. His truths can be inferred by context. The rest can be dismissed or taken on faith.

Any report that doesn't conform with his narrative would be called just another lie from the USSR from the people that would decry his wife's testimony as a KGB plot. What's more is you are really just playing his game at his point because you aren't asking the bigger question. The problem with claims like '100 million people died because of communism' isn't just that they are exaggerated figures but also that they don't show how it's anything particular to communism that caused these deaths. Was it communism that killed them or problems particular to the USSR? The people that make this claim never ask this because they are not interested in the answer. They only want to make propaganda to stop the fall of capitalism. Doug is trying to ask that more important question, should we blame communism for everything bad that happened in the USSR? Of course he should of also probably said that Solzhenitsyn isn't to be taken on face value, but how much he is to be trusted is another question so it's not worth spending to much time on it.

I am only interested in investigating the human failures which allow for these systems to be so malevolent. I have little to no interest in theory. My main concern is the relationship between people and their environments.

Sounds like theory to me. Of course Marxists should want to answer the question of what went wrong as well to avoid those mistakes in the future.

Activism is more important that theorizing.

Activism is important for making the revolution possible. Theory is important for making the revolution successful.

Activism is how Civil Society absorbs class struggle and organizes consent to relations of production.

Shoo shoo liberals

so we should do nothing?

Go away Bordiga. Not all activism is completely pointless. At the very least it can organize a labor movement which necessary for a revolution.

gee maybe what you people (overwhelmingly young straight suburban white dudes from america) call idpol is just actually treating marginalised folks with the bare minimum of human decency. POC and queer folks have a radically different view of the world than you do, because they grew up in a world in which YOU were the norm and THEY were the Other.

You can't deny this criticism seems to be very narrowly focused at feminists, POC, queers and other highly vulnerable people. Regardless of the leftist trappings, this is bound to attract the worst kind of people, the resentful male 'gamers' who follow skeptics such as sargon, by appealing to a very real undercurrent of bigotry.

Working class bisexual tranny here
IdPol is garbage
All idpol does is unnecessarily cause people like you to treat me like some other, rather than like a person, where "they" (the anti-idpol leftypol) treat me like a human being rather than some tool to force their narrative

they aren't be criticized for being POC or queer, they're being criticized for being idiot liberals.
The only way you could have a problem with this is if you're one of those "words are violence" morons.

This is a weird way to spell "overzealous white American college kids who like inflating their egos by virtue-signalling on twitter", and I wouldn't call these people highly vulnerable, they often come from a comfy middle-class background.
People who content themselves with a cosy moralistic stance on idpol and a teenager-tier understanding of capitalism deserve to be ruthlessly criticized, and I'm glad Doug is doing this job with a left-wing perspective.
Also, read this : thenorthstar.info/?p=11299

She was a moderate Social Democrat.

Doug Criticizes idpol from a materialist perspective. Sargon does it from an idealist perspective.

That's great and all but it's a moral crusade mired in a particularist world view incapable of addressing universal class antagonisms that you're mistaking for a political program.

Yeah, fuck that, I'm not buying that there is an unbridgeable epistemological barrier or something. Any explanation that relies on "you just can't understand it if you aren't x" needs to be thrown in the trash.

Many marxist thinkers have talked about how Race and Gender interact with Class, but leftypol won't hear anything about it. I think there is a very real pattern of disregard for the struggles of marginalised people on here. Many of the posters on here are suburban straight white dudes who feel attacked if told to be more self critical, we as leftists need to be self critical and critical of hegemonic culture, we need to practice radical empathy towards the most vulnerable people in society. Sure, muh anti idpol may seem edgy, but we need to understand it basically amounts to telling marginalised folks their problems aren't real or are somehow less real than middle class white dude problems.

Holy fuck, he is going to start the year with a bang.

my problem with the term "idpol" is also that it's an orwellian contraction. remember in nineteen eighty-four they use the term "thinkpol" for the thought police. the point of mashing words together like this is to eliminate thought. in our case the term "identity politics" and everything that it represents gets smashed down into "idpol" and becomes purely negative.

you can be trans/queer and still have shitty right wing ideas that go against your self interest. Right Wingers will always take advantage of this to push their regressive ideologies and deny they are fundamentally based on bigotry.

I think most things associated with idpol and political correctness are in fact good and have represented a massive improvement for most people, sure a few white guys might feel uncomfortable, but for everyone else, the people who are used to feeling uncomfortable, it must be a tremendous relief to no longer be so casually othered and dehumanised.

Who the fuck is this?
Genuinely cannot tell.

Some iranian graduate student who became famous for showing her class Jordan Peterson and getting reprimanded.

just a whole lot of woke takes

She doesn't look Iranian. Can you put a source to that?

Middle/Upper class POC also suffer from police employment discrimination. Peterson's attacks on NB/Trans people may seem harmless, that is if you are straight, to the people who know better, these attacks form part of a broader pattern of institutional transphobia, trans/nb people are getting murdered for being who they are. I identify as an attack helicopter jokes and terms such as trap(a term that implies trans/nb people are out to 'trick' heterosexuals) can have a devastating real world effect that results on the murder of trans and nb people

lol

Look dude I agree that class based oppression can manifest itself in varying ways amongst different social groups and it's foolish to disregard that but that's not what's being criticized outside of some vulgar Holla Forums circles. What is being criticized, at least by Doug, is misinterpreting an anti-political moral crusade for the political and the puritanical atmosphere that has been festering in the contemporary left where any slight transgression or deviation from approved verbiage or Right thought is met with cries of excommunication. Being empathetic and self care are not political. It's a lifestyle choice. Identity politics in it's contemporary configuration, where increasingly granular identities are enshrined as essentialities that eclipse any universal class struggle, is unworkable from a political perspective.

>police employment
Are you trying to bait me?
I also suffer from employment discrimination by the way because I don't have a bourg uncle who can give me a cushy job or a recommendation letter, and I have a hard time getting a job right now. I think my situation should be ranked higher on the oppression olympics scale than theirs.

Excuse me, what are you doing here? You know the term 'trap' comes from 4chan, right? Please tell me this is just bait.

the left isn't 'puritanical' enough, you still have rapists and sexual harassers and transphobes in leftist circles. We still have a wider toxic culture based on right wing hegemony, the attitudes of which always threaten to infect 'leftist' circles, and which 'anti-idpol' attitudes play to as an unwilling(or most likely willing) enabler. Empathy and self care are a matter of survival, not of lifestyle choice, for people less fortunate than you. And the 'essentialism' of identity politics is a strategic essentialism, a response to right wing hegemony, 'universalism' is often a cover for a default, straight white male subject, hence the neccesity to always be critical and listen to marginalised folks.

Give me a list of murders user. Show me the violence.

he should kick out the male feminists I agree.
empathy and self care ain't gonna pay the mortgage.
no, universalism is the belief that that communist theory can and should be applied to help all workers, including marginalized ones. Without universalism you get asserism, left wing nationalism, and exclusionary social democratic welfare states. I thought sjws were all about inclusion?
Thomas Sowell is more important than Marx everybody!

see .

I believe on helping all workers, but we can all agree Holla Forums has lately been filling up with red sargonites and people who deny marginalisation even exists. Marginalisation affects every single aspect of your life if you belong to a marginalised community, and that is hard for people who are used to being the default to understand.

lol why is this so fucking funny

Woops, a little slip here. I of course meant: we still have etc. my fellow leftists :^)

Especially in the puritan ones.
Then this is bad strategy. In practice, you have just put fuel to the flames of the alt-right by sharing a mainly essentialist view of social relations and arguing with them on the same terms.
Yes, but your critique of universalism is also a white Western thing. Romanis think their daughters ought to forcibly married to a man their parents have chosen beforehand, because that's their culture. The Hutu thought it was a good idea to genocide the Tutsi in 1994. Dugin argues that Putin did nothing wrong and Americans just don't understand the Russian mindset. I hope you don't dare to question any their choices with your Western-centric perspective.

It's not' my critique' but the critiques of women queers and racialised people we should be listening to

Well, I happen to be a black queer woman, so you should listen to me user.

How is that in my self-intrest though?

This is not a politics. You can be a terrible person and still be left wing. How 'empathetic' and 'understanding' you are has nothing to do with what policies you stand for and how you aim to achieve them.

The truth is the truth regardless of who speaks it. I'll only listen to minorities, queers or women if they have something useful and true to say, same standards apply to white straight men. All perspectives are unique since all individuals are unique with unique experiences, this does not make their perspective objectively useful. Your essentialism is prejudicial and reactionary.

how can you call yourself a leftist? if you care only about your self interest, you are a bourgeois reactionary and a white supremacist

literally what

read marx

it is in my self interest to oppose capitalism and white supremacy. You're just being a triggered whiner right now.

we all suffer from unconscious bias, even marginalised people are made to question themselves constantly due to hegemonic culture, hence, we must amplify their voices and help them express their true feelings.

pro-tip: "marginalized people" is not a monolithic group and doesn't constitute a unified political movement.
If the "true feelings" of a marginalized person are reactionary i'm not gonna respect their feelings.

see , hence theory is necessary, healing from marginalisation can be an arduous and painful process, and people like you are not helping.

self interest is the basis of socialism

Not everyone here have petit-bourgeois parents and a comfy upper middle-class background like you. Communism is in my self-interest because I come from a poor family and I'm tired to deal with some inefficiencies of the capitalist mode of production. I will deal with them probably my whole life though, the ride never ends.
If you think communism is about being morally good and right, you are fundamentally misguided (see ).

Wait, you just said that "if you care only about your self interest, you are a bourgeois reactionary and a white supremacist", right ? If trans/queer people "have shitty right wing ideas that go against [their] self interest.", it is all good then, no ?

It's not "all good" part of a comprehensive anti oppression politics involves helping marginalized folks to get over the shitty ideas they have internalized

if your self interest rests upon the exclusion of others, then that self interest is reactionary.

I don't have any words for you.

...

This "healing" would be education, yet it would be impossible to educate anyone marginalized out of any "shitty right-wing ideas" because of your own position. If "we must amplify their voices and help them express their true feelings," then we must first determine what their true feelings are. This requires a rational apparatus to determine such a thing prior which necessarily rejects whatever the marginalized person or group believes to be true. It requires imagining not merely what they are and where their interests lie, but what they should be and their interests should lie.

How do we even know that the right-wing views aren't their true feelings? It would have to be our own perspective which may suffer from "unconscious bias" that renders it impossible to determine what the education should be beyond a recourse to the voices of the marginalized who are expressing such right-wing views. This circle doesn't close without situating one's view over the marginalized or letting that right-wing view remain.

False Consciousness is one of the most widely accepted Marxist ideas, I don't get what's so hard to understand. Marginalised people should educate other marginalised people, you are right that it is not your job as a white/cis/straight person to intervene, but it is your responsibility refer them to wiser and more knowledgable members community instead of encouraging the shitty ideas they have internalised

Yes, but that's just it: it's a Marxist idea.

So Marxists shouldn't educate the marginalized about false consciousness if they have a particular ascribed identity? If the idea's true, then it's universally true and you've made a universal claim which you criticized earlier. If it's only true by perspective, then the idea has no truth whatever as it relies entirely on a universally cognizable false and true; if not, "false consciousness" can be used by even the right-wing "correctly."

There's also something infantilizing and vaguely chauvinistic about this thought process: "unlike me, the marginalized won't believe something is true unless spoken by someone like them, while I'll listen and believe their claims." It's as if you're saying they can't evaluate the claim for themselves, regardless of who speaks it. This is actually quite perverse because you're privileging only those like you as capable of understanding any claim regardless of identity, and those with ascribed marginalized identities are treated as intellectual infants.

To thwart this without universality, you would have to move back to the issue of perspectival bias for the non-marginalized as well, yet, if you do, you can't evaluate any truth claim as a universal which again results in "false consciousness" being utterly meaningless.

you clearly aren't talking about false consciousness, you're talking about applying the white mans burden to leftist circles because apparently PoC need to be educated but they're also inherently knowledgable about politics and need to be listened to.
did you just assume my race/gender/sexual orientation
how are you supposed to judge what "shitty ideas" that marginalized people have while also deferring to marginalized people as smarter and more knowledgable
you say that we should listen to PoC but also that PoC need to be educated. It's pure liberal fetishism.

I think the issue arises from trying to take a particular problem and trying to apply it as a universal theory. Some people from marginalized groups hold reactionary positions, and any decent leftist should combat that however possible. On the other hand, the Left, as a part of wider society, is susceptible to repressing marginalized groups. This may make people with experiences of being marginalized distrustful of Leftists of the dominant social group based on reactionary ethnic, gender or sexual divisions. As a response to this many leftists have tried their best to be as accommodating of these marginalized people as they can. This practice of accommodation can really only work on a person to person basis, not as a universal principle, because in the end whatever principles we hold in common as leftists, holds preeminence over any counterrevolutionary thought, whether it originates from someone of a marginalized identity or of the dominant identity.

meant trying to take a solution to a particular problem

this sort of overgeneralising can lead you to treat people as aliens or as fetishised embodiments of an abstract category instead as of people. modern ideas of race/sexuality aren't eternal but date back a few hundred years at most.

we need to refer marginalised people to wiser and more knowledgable members of their community, who can teach them the ways of their people and heal them of the harmful ideas they might have internalised

What a load of shit. All this talk of marginalized people is just the new noble savage, something for self-flagellating crypto-liberals to fawn over.

This

t. cishet white dood :^)

it was my privilege