Recent comments in /f/Podcasts

Reply to comment by rozsima in [removed] by insurrectobot

rozsima wrote (edited )

He also repeatedly refers to 'transgendrism,' as an 'ideology,' and I'm not sure he is someone I want to be associated with. This scene has very strange people it seems to uplift as important. Really disappointing.

This stuff right now seems less focused on racial aspects in contemporary discourse and much more focused on gender. This discussion seems highly sensitive and emotive to a lot of people. This is probably because gender and sex cross religious, racial and cultural boundaries, into the core of our notions of self. I’m not going to be discussing biological, material, physical sex here very much, but am going to mainly talk about the social category of gender. I work with an eco-feminist organisation, follow a large number of feminist social media outlets and am friends with a lot of people who are very vocal about issues relating to gender, from all sides of the discussion. What struck me about contemporary liberal discourse was the lack of outrage over Caitlyn Jenner endorsing Donald Trump, particularly from those friends who had been vocal in supporting her in the media previously as a trans-woman. The thing that seems to unite radicals and liberals in Trump is that he is just so disgusting and awful that we can all agree he is pure fucking scum. But why wasn’t there any sense of betrayal from the liberal community? My “TERF” – a term I think is outrageously flippant and misrepresentative – friends were outraged by this, with Facebook posts about her claim that Trump is good for women and LGBT+ people. Now I don’t actually think this one trans-womans stupid comments actually matter that much (celebrities say stupid shit everyday), but that is not the point I’m making. Liberal discourse and media appears totally unwilling to be even the slightest bit critical of individual trans-people or the trans-movement. This cultures political correctness dogmatisms seems to have closed down discourse out of fear of offending. What does offending do though? Nothing, really! Yes in a psychological sense being offended may cause a bit of emotional upset, but part of life is dealing with the emotional internal world and navigating the external material world. Yes these things might not be as dualistic as I’ve just described: consciousness is material, but it would be dishonest to say that our internal worlds, save for how they impact our individual actions, have a direct causal relation to the external social and natural worlds we live in. My point isn’t that we need to criticise Queer theory and transgenderism any more than we need to criticise any other ideology; as far as I’m concerned we should always look to be deconstructive and iconoclastic. I also see no reason to deny trans-people their identities or to be disrespectful towards them. My point is this: discussion of issues relating to gender appear to have stagnated and are being repressed out of a liberal cultures unwillingness to do substantial discourse, outside of their own ideology. Writers and activists I am in contact with have been silenced and ostracized for writing critically about queer theory and the trans-ideology; the two I’m currently thinking of both being gender-abolitionists, who also hate patriarchy and sexist gender narratives. Discourse – language – has become a prison, a tyrant, a despot, not just on discussion of gender, but in so much of contemporary discussion and liberals seem unwilling to identify the chains they are constructing.

All this TERF language and it seems to be totally fine? I don't know how referring to trans people as ideological and comparing it to liberalism is anything new... It's whay reactionaries have always done. I'll see my way out. :c

6

Reply to [removed] by insurrectobot

rozsima wrote (edited )

I heard Langer is transphobic. Is this true? :c

I'm asking because he's a member of DGR. This seems strange to support such a person.

3

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

if the world was radically decentralised that race wouldn't exist so this would be largely a non-issue,

He seemed to think this wouldn't be the case at all. Personally, I'm undecided - it's not something I think about often because it's straying into 'what if?' territory, which I associate with 'After The Revolution' fantastical thinking.

Perhaps with time you will come to understand my anarchism more and notice how what I thought has nothing to do with 'after the revolution' thinking. Unfortunately I don't have the energy to explain it at the moment.

in an anarchist society everyone will be queer is hard to read outside of a kind of queerphobia and an active avoidance of understanding queerness differently.

The exact same joke (which is what I heard it as) is in one of the Baedan journals, which I'm guessing is where he got it from

I would be interested to read that section if anybody can come up with it.

Aside from that I appreciate your responding. I'm not going to listen to it again to think through what you've said, but I am pretty sensitive to people's word choices and presentation generally so I generally feel confident about what I said.

1

Reply to by !deleted23067

insurrectobot wrote

Didn't really enjoy this one, was expecting something a lot better given the subject matter.

2

shanc wrote (edited )

I diverge with him mostly on this new 'world building' habit he's picked up. For someone who used to be against this kind of thing, he now spends a lot of time imagining fantasy future scenarios and toying with how best to deal with this or that problem. I find those conversations tedious.

him being willing for there to be racist bolos / racist decentralised societies seemed to be very friendly to a kind of national-anarchist view

I didn't hear that at all. I heard him say that there'd always be racists and that there's no way of dealing with them that isn't authoritarian. I don't really have any thoughts of this because, again, it's a scenario that only exists in his imagination. The real life white supremacist communities you're talking about are something else and I'd be very interested to talk about them and how to deal with them but that's a different conversation.

if the world was radically decentralised that race wouldn't exist so this would be largely a non-issue,

He seemed to think this wouldn't be the case at all. Personally, I'm undecided - it's not something I think about often because it's straying into 'what if?' territory, which I associate with 'After The Revolution' fantastical thinking.

He went out of his way to say that he thinks biological sex exists, which I assume is shorthand for saying that he thinks that binary biological sex is real

I didn't hear it as that, but if that's what he meant, then yeah that's shitty.

in an anarchist society everyone will be queer is hard to read outside of a kind of queerphobia and an active avoidance of understanding queerness differently.

The exact same joke (which is what I heard it as) is in one of the Baedan journals, which I'm guessing is where he got it from.

His whole repeated 'joke' about being a paradigm of reason give a sense of a kind of superiority complex and a resentment, which is a shame to see.

Wasn't that Aragorn's joke that he kept repeating back? idk, their sense of humour is kind of weird to me as someone who isn't from NA, but I never for a moment thought that he was actually saying he was a paradigm of reason.

Thanks for your reply. There's an Oak Journal podcast with Bellamy recorded around the same time as this one that you might be interested in.

1

shanc wrote

I was referring to the made up quote above. I've never said I was reading a Bellamy book, in fact the only thing I've read by him is the magazine Backwoods. I've never responded to criticism of Bellamy's work by the above person because I've never seen any - just obviously made up stuff about private social media conversations. This pernicious behaviour has already made leftist spaces so toxic, and is now doing the exact same in anarchist spaces.

−1