23

/f/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo is being abused

Submitted by kore in meta

I am not comfortable with the use of /f/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo to publicly shame other members of our community. It appears that people are beginning to use the word "Liberal" to mean "Not leftist/anarchist/insert-anti-oppression-ideology-of-your-choice enough." There is no correct way to be a radical. Calling people out like this is foolish and it breeds fear and anxiety. Please stop, everywhere on raddle. Learn from each other. I remember reading a post on here recently that said something like "I assume I'm wrong as a matter of praxis." Some people are way too defensive here.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

11

WindTalk wrote

I think the hate-motivating in general is best avoided. Especially hate as a long-term strategy.

9

kore wrote (edited )

I almost wanted to title this post "get rid of r/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo". Maybe I should have. Many of the posts, not just the ones directed at raddle members, are extremely toxic. EDIT: with the word "toxic" I am referring to posts that criticize members of leftist spaces and those who seem to be developing their thoughts and emerging from capitalist indoctrination as "liberal." Maybe there aren't many but I was pretty frustrated by the ones I did see.

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

________deleted wrote

I don't see what hierarchy has to do with it. I just didn't agree with your comment or consider it at all compatible with socialism.

10

kore wrote (edited )

When people are scared to speak because they are afraid of being shamed, that is a de facto hierarchy.

It is much more useful to address people's opinions/arguments with words (as you are doing right now) than make a spectacle of them.

5

Pop wrote

Raddle's not just a socialist site though, and there are ways to be radical without being socialist here

this does seem unfair

and I get really confused at why there are a handful of you who are confident that defasher is the meanie here
when I find it much easier to understand their position and contextualise their actions in response to a collective kind of bullying from you folks together with a lack of genuine attempt to engage

I agree that defasher's not always the best at getting their ideas across or the friendliest when challenged but the response they get ... it doesn't put you folks in a good light

-1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

6

Pop wrote

This is a cartoon called colonial mario about colonial types imposing their lifeways on indigenous peoples

your understanding this as being leftists who are being lectured by reactionaries is literally what this cartoon critiques, because you're understanding indigenous peoples in terms of your own categories even as they persistently try to resist them

which is actually quite stunning for me

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

[deleted] wrote

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

Pop wrote (edited )

Defasher and others have said on multiple occasions that they are not an anarcho-primitivist

and it really shows how little you both understand about the politics that you keep assuming/asserting that they are

literally nobody active on this site is anarcho-primitivist, afaik

sigh

2

kore wrote (edited )

EDIT: I now know that Defasher posted ironically but I still don't think that things like that should be said seriously, and even when it's said ironically it can be confusing for people who don't understand the debate.

I for one have seen you post things like "GO FUCK YOURSELF PRIMMIE TRASH"

which amounts to the same: making people afraid to speak for fear of ridicule. I don't deny that some of the things that you respond to are misguided, but name calling does not do anything to resolve tensions.

I don't think such comments should be tolerated on Raddle.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

Dumai wrote

if you're talking about me then i'm not a post-leftist i just hate transhumanism with every fibre of my being lol

2

kore wrote

no i wasn't specifically, just that it seems like there's pretty contentious debates about it on the site.

3

kore wrote (edited )

No, I actually did not. Forgive me, I don't really understand what's going on with transhumanism and primitivism...

4

Cheeks wrote

I've waited a while to respond and my intention is to not exclude anyone, but here it is:

honestly think the page exists for a good reason and supports critical praxis judgment. Often what is is targeted is the other BS side iof bipartisan politics.

I kinda feel like op is being reactionary when they should be critical.

Im sorry if you feel like youre being attacked. But this isnt a safe space for the privileged, you need to learn to check that shit,its a safe space for those who need it.

1

kore wrote (edited )

I agree with you that the "BS side of bipartisan politics" should be criticized.

My point is that "critical praxis judgement" of radicals can be alienating to people who are just trying to learn, especially when it is done by calling them out to the entire community with sarcasm rather than "being critical."

I have never been attacked in this manner. I do not think these people should have the expectation that they will not be criticized, but I do think that they should have the expectation that they will not be shamed or name-called.

In what way am I advocating a safe space for the privileged? I truly do not understand.

You called me reactionary, which I cede to in that /f/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo is not itself the problem. However, I had reasons for calling it out rather than just "I feel attacked" or "I think other people are feeling attacked".

I don't understand how you saying that I'm reactionary and talking about safe spaces without elaborating on what you mean is critical at all. The terms "reactionary" and "safe space" are useful. However, this thread is expressly bringing up the point that when one calls fellow radicals "reactionary" and implying that they are supporting "safe spaces for the privileged" without any further elaboration, it only serves to breed animosity and anxiety when we should be focusing on love and camraderie.

2

Cheeks wrote

With the current accepted meaning of "Liberal" due in part to culture and the natural evolution of language, there is nothing radical about those who identify as such. By defending those who do identify as such i find that to be reactionary.

3

kore wrote

I agree with you. I'm not defending people who identify as liberals, I'm defending people who identify as radicals in good faith that are identified as liberals. If some of their views are questionable or sympathetic to neoliberalism, they should be critically examined, but they should not be called names.

1

Cheeks wrote

So, then your point is simply the name calling and the alienation attributed to it directed towards possible future comrades, i.e. liberals?

1

kore wrote

It's very strange to me that so many anarchists/radicals insist equating people who are acting in good faith but maybe haven't thought things through so much (like someone who just read the communist manifesto or something) with liberals.

2

Cheeks wrote

It never ceases to amaze how at every demo I have ever been to there is someone screaming 'no violence' at me and usually an unknown comrade, for either defending those who need it, or simply using what's available to protect all of us as things are escalated by the cops. These are people who identify as liberals and regard a whitewashed version of history as fact and refuse to listen to an opposing view.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Can you be a bit more specific about what you think is toxic, as applies to the forum generally rather than just that recent post?

I'd like people to generally act in better faith on this site, but I'm not sure if I agree broadly with what you've said here. (that said, I don't spend much time on this forum)

I don't mind if people want to showcase clear examples of what is bad/hypocritical about liberalism, and also to critique the liberalism inherent in some supposed radical politics.
People are angry and it can be a useful way to express that anger, I think, and also be an accessible way for people to learn about the kinds of things that radicals dislike.

I do think that using it to mock established members of the community seems generally undesirable (though I imagine it will have its place when dealing with actual liberal users), though.

4

kore wrote

This does not happen often on the forum, but it happens often on the site: I often do not understand what is being criticized if it is not a "clear example of what is bad/hypocritical about liberalism." Many posts here (not just ones critical of certain views) are heavily allusive and impenetrable to people who have not read a lot of theory. The critiques some people do have, which are often opaque to me (and probably to others) are so invective while at the same time only understandable to people who are "in on the joke" that it prevents people who are genuinely curious about these things from voicing their views because they are afraid they will be ripped apart by words they don't understand.

You are right that as far as /f/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo may not be toxic generally, but I think behaviors that I just outlined are.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I think you're right - we've tried to combat this by making it w/etiquette that people who post critiquing memes do so with explanations. Perhaps we should find a way to do this more broadly, at least for general forums.