Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I've read dragonowl's piece a few times now. I don't think it's great but it's useful. It does speak in particular to identity politics as something that reduces structural problems to a single identity axis, which neither I nor Jackie Wang nor Achille Mbembe do. I think race reductionism is similarly flawed to class reductionism, though I have done the work to understand why people are interested in both.

I don't have the energy to read more than a paragraph of your stuff, sorry. If you want to engage with me further generally it'd help me if you kept your responses short.

-1

anarchist_critic wrote

OK then, smart-alec. How does replacing "let's be insane reductionists about how everything comes down to one axis of oppression" with "let's be insane reductionists about how everything comes down to a dozen different axes of oppression and we've got to be super extreme and insane about all of them" solves the problems raised in the article.

At least the one-contradiction version is consistent. The "intersectional" version puts itself in the impossible position of trying to be equally extreme about lots of things at once, and doesn't have any way to resolve the problem when they come into conflict.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

It's very hard to believe that you're writing any of this in good faith because you seem to be intentionally messing me around. I assume you're doing the same with others.

Thanks for making it shorter though. Not sure why you're calling me names.

Separately, please cut it out with the ableist language though, seriously.

Dragonowl is fine with intersectionality - I'm confused why you refer to them to base your argument and then come up with a second totally different kind of argument here. It really seems you don't understand how intersectionality works. That aside, I primarily use nonnormative philosophy to engage with identity, but I'm fine with people using intersectionality generally.

-2

anarchist_critic wrote

Nope, not messing you around.

Sorry if I started the name-calling here. To be fair, ziq is bullying me viciously on another thread and "smart-alec" isn't exactly a severe insult. And you seem to me to be nit-picking, in trying to make out that Dragonowl's critique applies to less of idpol than it does. It clearly applies to anything which is leveraging positionality instead of ego, even though all his/her/their examples come from one-axis idpols. If it's attaching value to a spook or positionality instead of Unique Ones, it's a problem for egoists... that's pretty straightforward and I can't understand why you can't understand that.

As for

you don't understand how intersectionality works

That's because nobody who uses the word seems to have a clear sense of what it means. Nobody's ever defined it. Because it's a buzzword. I've mostly seen it used like a magic wand to wish away the problems with idpol. OK, we've established there's multiple lines of oppression and they all cross over with each other and they compound or reinflect one another. What then? All the "intersectional" people I've come across still pull the same old idpol shit like "check your privilege", language policing, zero-sum demands that everything benefit the worst-off GROUP, the validity of someone's truth-claims depends on the group they come from etc etc. Except that now, even people from oppressed groups can be silenced using this rhetoric. And they're very hazy on what someone should do if a particular action benefits one oppressed group but harms another. For instance, suppose that having more cops at train stations makes women feel safer but black men feel less safe - should we be for it or against it? The one-contradiction idpols have a clear answer but the intersectionalists just dodge it. I've never heard a clear answer from an intersectionalist on how one handles these situations - with the exception of those who use "intersectional" to mean "black women come first - white men, white women, and black men are all oppressors". By all means try to explain it if you think you understand it better than me.

-4

anarchist_critic wrote

Nope, not messing you around.

Sorry if I started the name-calling here. To be fair, ziq is bullying me viciously on another thread and "smart-alec" isn't exactly a severe insult. And you seem to me to be nit-picking, in trying to make out that Dragonowl's critique applies to less of idpol than it does. It clearly applies to anything which is leveraging positionality instead of ego, even though all his/her/their examples come from one-axis idpols. If it's attaching value to a spook or positionality instead of Unique Ones, it's a problem for egoists... that's pretty straightforward and I can't understand why you can't understand that.

As for

you don't understand how intersectionality works

That's because nobody who uses the word seems to have a clear sense of what it means. Nobody's ever defined it. Because it's a buzzword. I've mostly seen it used like a magic wand to wish away the problems with idpol. OK, we've established there's multiple lines of oppression and they all cross over with each other and they compound or reinflect one another. What then? All the "intersectional" people I've come across still pull the same old idpol shit like "check your privilege", language policing, zero-sum demands that everything benefit the worst-off GROUP, the validity of someone's truth-claims depends on the group they come from etc etc. Except that now, even people from oppressed groups can be silenced using this rhetoric. And they're very hazy on what someone should do if a particular action benefits one oppressed group but harms another. For instance, suppose that having more cops at train stations makes women feel safer but black men feel less safe - should we be for it or against it? The one-contradiction idpols have a clear answer but the intersectionalists just dodge it. I've never heard a clear answer from an intersectionalist on how one handles these situations - with the exception of those who use "intersectional" to mean "black women come first - white men, white women, and black men are all oppressors". By all means try to explain it if you think you understand it better than me.

2

BigGeorge moderator wrote

One more ableist outburst and I'm banning you from this forum.

-3

anarchist_critic wrote

Ok, Mr. Dictator. Which innocuous everyday word have you decided is "ableist"?

If you're on about "insane" - you do realise that this kind of language-policing bullshit means you'll end up banning most of the people with actual psychological problems, right? Because, I know a lot of people who are schizophrenic, bipolar, autistic, and they all hate idpol and they all speak their fucking minds. The idpol etiquette shit is absolutely impossible for someone who doesn't have the usual hivemind groupthink and the usual checks on what they say. You are literally performing ableism with your narrow-minded ideological insistence on self-control and groupthink, and then dressing it up as anti-ableist! I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

This is absolutely classic crybullying... I've been subjected to endless insults without any redeeming logical argument, and when I lower myself to their level, they (presumably) cry victim.

And seriously... if you're going to censor me for my political disagreement with idpol groupthink (we all know that's the real stake here since you've turned a blind eye to endless vicious personal attacks on me), go ahead. And fuck you and your fake selective "anti-ableism".

1

BigGeorge moderator wrote (edited )

Banned for doubling down on ableism.

I suggest you make a new forum like f/brocialism where you can rant about idpol in peace.

You can appeal your ban in f/meta but since you've made clear you will continue ignoring the terms of service every moderator is tasked with upholding, I wouldn't bother.