You must log in or register to comment.

SomeIconoclast wrote

Khachiyan helpfully underlines the point: There’s this idea that we live in a white supremacist country when we fundamentally don’t.

OH MY FUCKING GOD!

7

amongstclouds OP wrote

These people just want business as usual... they just want to be the one's calling the shots.

8

SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

Yeah, that seems to be a recurring theme throughout human history. Reminds me of Sisyphus.

"Okay, well, the last guy we let have power over most of us turned out to be an asshole, so now what?"

"Why don't we have multiple people rule instead?"

"Brilliant! Nothing can go wrong with a small pocket of people ruling over the majority! We just need more rulers!"

...

"Okay, well, the last guys we let have power over most of us turned out to be a group assholes, so now what?"

6

alex wrote

no big surprises here

6

ziq wrote

this article just taught me literally everything I know about this podcast

6

amongstclouds OP wrote

Class reductionists are just fascists who pretend to care.

5

blog wrote

When they called themselves the dirtbag left I took the name at face value.

3

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

I gotta push back a little bit on this. First, what it gets right - there have been several examples of the hosts using ablest language, Amber is legitimately problematic at least once every time she is on the podcast, and I cannot defend her or her views, but I don't think it's a fair characterization to judge the whole podcast by an interview of the most disliked host on the podcast.

Moreover, class first leftism allows the dirtbags to imitate reactionary right wing media’s essential grift: posing as champions of the downtrodden while kicking the marginalized. Attacking women, the disabled, or antiracists, is presented as heroic socialism, since all those people are trying to distract us from the only real nexus of oppression. Thus, Frost in a since-deleted Medium post called disability advocates in the Democratic Socialists of America a bunch of “wreckers” when they said they wanted a bigger voice in the organization’s health care policy planning. Frost has a direct psychic connection to the workers; she doesn’t need to listen to experts, or marginalized people directly affected by policy.

The podcast does not embrace class-only viewpoint, they consistently recognize oppression of gender, race, identity, the struggles of our trans comrades, they have stopped using ablest language as far as I can tell, and they definitely do not attack the marginalized in the name of class reductionism.

To sum up, I do think there are legitimate criticisms of Chapo, but these are not them. These criticisms ring hollow and do not reflect what is actually talked about on the podcast.

If you wanted to say that the Chapo gang are far too caught up in the horse-race aspects of elections, the minutia of US politics and behind the scenes actors, and centrist editorial writers who have no actual audience, I'd say, yeah that tracks. If you wanted to say that they should be much more militant and have calls for action outside of the political system, I'd totally be with you. If you wanted to say that the show suffers from having an over-representation of young, white, males of privilege, I'm in total agreement. This is probably more time and effort than a kinda dumb and very imperfect podcast deserves, but there it is.

2

SomeIconoclast wrote

That's fair, but the article mainly critiques "The Dirtbag Left" and how the label basically used to popularize class-reductionism to the detriment of every other marginalized group. It's more critical of Red Scare (Which I've never listened to and can't really confirm) than Chapo.

3

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Yeah, I can't really speak on the Red Scare either. I am not a fan of the dirtbag left in general, or anyone who adopts a strict class reductionist view. I did try to listen to Cum Town, which is an actually Chapo adjacent podcast and they are fucking terrible.

0

amongstclouds OP wrote

Okay, if you really wanna see the problem then, like, go to ChapoTrapHouse and you'll see that even the fans perpetuate this behavior.

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote (edited )

We all know that reddit is full of bigots trying to be edgy, and their subreddit has that too. At this point in our broken society, it doesn't seem to be possible to assemble a group of 100,000+ people on the internet without bigots and edgelords showing up. They have also been the target of multiple targeted attacks by the worst sections of reddit. I don't think that makes this type of language ok, I just don't think that's necessarily something you can throw at the feet of the podcast, or the subreddit. From my experience on their sub, this is not behavior that is tolerated, nor speech that I've seen there.

−1

n_n wrote

full of bigoted idiots

That's an ableist word, I suggest "shitheads" instead.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

This is aside the point, but shitheads is probably also ableist if you think about it. It's the same conceptual framework as the word idiot, basically denigrating someone for not being intelligent (shit-brained would be another example, which is more explicit but means the same thing as shithead)

1

n_n wrote (edited )

Shithead means "a contemptible person". I also use "scum" for similar purpose.

is probably

No offense but I'm kinda curious, there is some reason for making baseless statements on this issue?

shit-brained

Never heard of that word and I can't find it in the dictionary.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

baseless statements? It's pretty clear that calling someone shit-headed is referring to the contents of the head, the brain/mind, being shit. Which is the same as calling someone an idiot. So I was contributing to the topic, which was a call-in about problematic language w/r/t ableism

weird-ass gaslighting you're committing to, perhaps you want to reflect on this and apologize for coming out guns blazing to shut me down?

It's almost like this performed concern with problematic language has more to do with accumulating social capital and exerting power on others who aren't in the in-group, than it does with the substance of why the language is problematic...

3

n_n wrote (edited )

It's pretty clear

According to whom?

contents of the head, the brain/mind

So are you saying that bigots and despicable ideas and their products can't be compared to shit? How that is related with intelligence? The definition that I pointed doesn't state that so you are pulling shit of your ass.

apologize for coming out guns blazing to shut me down?

I'm a mental disable person who is speaking about their concern on a derogatory word to their kind and you are who is making baseless statements to cancel it.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

According to whom?

Uh, me? I'm the one talking, I explained specifically why this word comes across to me as ableist, with what I think is a pretty solid line of reasoning. You're the one invalidating this and linking me a fucking dictionary definition, what a lazy appeal to authority and casual/unsupported erasure of descriptivist science. And now, you try to flip the script on me with this petty jab, as if you hadn't just engaged in the very same logical fallacy? Again, your behavior comes across to me as gaslighting, which I'm pretty much razor sensitive to the last few weeks after dealing with a bunch of that IRL from multiple privileged fucks. Perhaps you can relate to that, and how shitty it feels when you're on the business end of that behavior. Please take time to reflect on what I'm saying in this thread, because I'm disengaging after this message.

So are you saying that bigots and despicable ideas and their products can't be compared to shit?

Uh, no. I'm saying you shouldn't defend the denigration of someone on the merit of their brainpower, because ironically it makes you the bigot. You can't insult someone's brain/mind without being ableist, and "head" is clearly a synecdoche for the former, as seen in the word "shithead". Am I not allowed to express that a word you suggested was not ableist actually is, just because it makes you feel self-conscious that you didn't realize it? Does it feel good, doubling down on this?

I don't even know how you are arguing this right now, it's so ridiculous because I was literally just adding an aside to your initial premise, not challenging it.

to cancel it.

Re-read the comment & your own response. I was adding to your point, you are getting defensive after being told your alternative suggestion might be problematic too. As far as I can tell, you would only react this way if the reason why you are posting in the first place is to exert social power over others, so my original comment which clearly supports your premise but disagrees slightly and politely with a specific conclusion comes across to you as an attack instead. I'm calling you out on this firmly now-- you're being manipulative, and using the discourse of social justice to accumulate social power over others, even if it means defending a word as "definitely not ableist" when someone is telling you they feel it might be. It's disappointing as fuck to me, and pretty apparent to others reading this.

4

n_n wrote

Uh, me?

Who the fuck are you? When I ask for your condescending opinion?

ironically it makes you the bigot.

Lol, nice reverse discrimination meme.

I think is a pretty solid line of reasoning

I don't give a fuck about your shitty reasoning. The Oxford and the Merriam–Webster dictionary support what I already said, your opinion is baseless and I give a flying fuck about it.

you're being manipulative

You are who is commenting me with you baseless opinions and try to make look a mental disable like an ableist. Like if I need people to tell me what ableism is.

exert social power over others

lol, yeah asking people to not use words that discriminate me and those like me is about power. What next? Trans people here calling out transphobia is also about accumulate social power? XD

−1
2

n_n wrote (edited )

The A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: https://books.google.com/books?id=KT-cAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA273

The Oxford dictionary states:

Shit-head, an objectionable person. 1971 J. Michener in Reader's Digest Apr. 240 Again the girls were particularly abusive, taunting the guards, calling them ‘shit-heads’, ‘half-ass pigs’. 1979 P. Niesewand Member of Club viii. 56 You lying shithead!

It's a variant of "shit-face". The use as lack of intelligence it's not present in the original meaning of the word.

Edit: also the Online Etymology Dictionary states the same.

I'm already move on about this issue.

1

ziq wrote

You haven't moved on.. you keep quoting a British dictionary to justify continuing to use an ableist slur after attacking someone for using another ableist slur. I can give you 100 sources that say it means 'stupid' or similar, so what's the point of linking to a different definition? Do you only accept the authority of the British Oxford dictionary and reject all other sources? Why?

Edit: also the Online Etymology Dictionary states the same.

That source doesn't even have a definition.

3

n_n wrote (edited )

a British dictionary

? I also linked the Merriam–Webster and the Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English

The Oxford dictionary gives examples with dates.

That source doesn't even have a definition.

It's for etymologies, the year of origin, 1961, is the same that the others.

The Collins dictionary uses foolish: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/shithead

Stuart Berg Flexner states: "Then in the 1870s, such terms as 'to fall in the shit' (to get in trouble) and the exclamation 'shit and corruption!' were recorded. Also in wide use between the 1870s and the 1890s were such seemingly modern terms as 'shit' and 'bullshit' meaning 'nonsense, rubbish, lies' (chicken shit' and 'horse shit' were recorded in the 1930s); 'the shits,'' diarrhea' ' hit pot' and 'shit face,' both referring to a contemptible person (followed by 'shit head' around 1915); 'to shit on someone,' to treat someone badly; and 'to beat the shit out of' someone. https://books.google.com/books?id=YelbTwLjnbEC&dq=both+referring+to+a+contemptible+person+(followed+by+'s+h+i+t+head'+around+1915)&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=shithead

to justify continuing to use an ableist slur

When I justified the use of any ableist slur?

after attacking someone for using another ableist slur

Which ableist slur? In what moment I attacked someone here for using an ableist slur?

reject all other sources

I didn't reject any source and I said if that word is a problem suggest another one. What I researched didn't point that and still any sources that have been presented gave me a better background of the word that those that I gave.

1

ziq wrote

When I justified the use of any ableist slur?

What exactly do you think you're doing right now quoting dictionaries to me to defend your promotion of an ableist slur after I showed you other authoritative dictionaries that clearly equate it with ableism?

Which ableist slur? In what moment I attacked someone here for using an ableist slur?

Click "Parent" a few times on your comment.

2

n_n wrote (edited )

What do you think you're doing by harassing a mental disable? You really seems to like to abuse vulnerable people, you are disgusting.

I'm nor defending nor promoting nothing, I suggested a word based in the sources that I presented and those who you presented doesn't contradict what I already said, that the original meaning was not ableist and there is not something accepted that is ableist since different dictionaries had different definitions, those that you presented focus in the modern definitions of words since they focus in the practical meaning of word with it’s use in sentence. A suggestion is a proposal, I proposed a word according to my limited knowledge, you can take it or not. So as I said you can suggest other word but both of you didn't, why?

Click "Parent" a few times on your comment.

I clicked parent to the my first comment and I don't see stacking anyone for using an ableist slur. You just want to bully me. So go and fuck your self. I'm under a lot in real life and my mind can't deal with this shit.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

You attacked someone for telling you the word you proposed was also ableist. You showed that you don't actually care about questioning ableist language by refusing to accept that your alternative word is also ableist.

I'm not "bullying" you. If I don't speak up when someone is being toxic like this, then I'm part of the problem. I'm sick of everyone ragequitting the site because of the toxic atmosphere and vicious attacks over minor disagreements.

You told someone not to use a word because it's abeist, told them to use another word. They told you that word was ableist also. So you attacked them, refused to accept it was ableist, linked them to less-developed definitions to try and silence them and now are calling me a bully and accusing me of "harassing a mentally disable" for linking you to more developed definitions.

This shows it's a petty power game for you, labeling anyone that has a slight disagreement with you a bigot and a bully to try and get the upper hand. It's toxic.

2

n_n wrote

I was literally just adding an aside to your initial premise, not challenging it.

If you were a little more aware you would saw that cowards bigots downvoted my first comment the instant that I posted it. You are implying something that I never stated with a personal conclusion that is not the meaning of the word at all. If you have a problem with the word them suggest another one. I'm done with it.

−1

amongstclouds OP wrote (edited )

They have also been the target of multiple targeted attacks by the worst sections of reddit. I don't think that makes this type of language ok, I just don't think that's necessarily something you can throw at the feet of the podcast, or the subreddit.

Then what exactly are you trying to say? You mean to tell me a sub full of misogynistic shitfucks get attacked and somehow this is related to what I'm talking about?

ALL OF MY SURPRISE.

0

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

No, I'm saying that a bunch of hateful shitfucks from T_D, Cringeanarchy, and Frenworld have done specific attacks on the sub, have tried to troll by posting hateful stuff, have attacked marginalized people there, and done a bunch of similar stuff over the past 2 years.

0

ziq wrote

I just got banned from cth for being an anarchist and I don't even post there. The mods saw me badmouthing tankies on r/@ and banned me. It's a tankie sub for sure now.

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Yeah, as a casual user of the sub, it seems like the tankies took over after the quarantine/threat of deletion from reddit admins. It was pretty damn rough for a while, but seems to be getting more inclusive at a meme level, but I guess that's the difficulty in such a huge sub, it's hard to tell if anarchists are quietly being purged behind the scenes.

0

amongstclouds OP wrote

No offense, but this reads like: the Left doesn't do that.

0

Splinglebot wrote

yea you should be grateful when we benevolent leftists don't physically attack you in the street. We only marginalise people a little bit. Some of us show even some basic standards of human decency sometimes!

2

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Perhaps my glasses are overly rosy. I do tend to be surprised and hurt by presumed leftists being bigots. It hasn't been my experience either with the podcast or the sub, but it's such a huge subreddit with such a huge base that I can't possibly speak to everyone's experience. I am sad to hear that others have experienced hate and bigotry there, and that does affect my opinion of it, so thanks for everyone who shared.

0

amongstclouds OP wrote

if I don't see it then it isn't real

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Come on, that's not a fair representation of what I said.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I wrote what I wrote originally because I haven't seen that stuff there. I have admitted that perhaps my outlook was naive or too optimistic, and that I'm sorry that others have not had the same experience, and that hearing of other's experiences has changed my view of that sub. That's not the same as if I don't see it, it isn't real.

3

amongstclouds OP wrote

the struggles of our trans comrades

lolol, no they don't. Go interact with half their fans and they got no problem talking about 'traps' and 'trannies'.

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

They've never said traps or trannies on the podcast.

1

amongstclouds OP wrote (edited )

Doesn't stop it from be influenced from the podcast AND nothing will change my mind after the people I've dealt with.

1

alex wrote

yeah i've also heard their fans say so many shit things. they really don't like identity politics in a reactionary way.

these guys will find their new Ron Paul eventually and give up any semblance of leftism.

4

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Ok. Well, I'm sorry, that fucking sucks. I've never seen that type of behavior on the sub, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

I've kind of lost interest in chapo. I realized the utterly wack electoralism is only going to get worse as the 2020 election zooms into place. Plus, Felix is an asshole, and Amber is insufferably smug about her terrible politics. Ironic, 'cause I'm the mod of the forum. I need a new podcast, been looking, but anyone have some suggestions? I need something that can make me laugh, so I don't kill myself lol

bonus points for trans content

2

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

I totally get that, I've quit the podcast several times.

Some podcasts I've enjoyed lately:

Kino Lefter. Canadian movie review podcast whose premise is that all movies/media are propaganda, so we should treat them as such. Sounds dry, but I laugh uncontrollably several times an episode. Not sure if it's just that they're extremely my shit, or if they are universally funny. I think they're legitimately funny.

The Final Straw has put out a lot of good content lately, but not much of it will make you laugh.

Sorry I don't have more, I'm struggling to find really good podcasts as well (which is partly why I keep coming back to Chapo despite my problems with their electoralism and the limits of their viewpoints and problematic stuff).

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

Thanks, I'll give Kino Lefter a try. TFS is classic but you're right, I'm looking for something more comedy-oriented

2