You must log in or register to comment.

Dumai wrote

he strikes me as somebody who's read a little bit of theory but only for the purpose of gathering material for internet polemic

he accused "idpols" of psychological behaviourism, which is a fairly common talking point used by critics of figures like judith butler, but then went on to describe their philosophy of "unconscious beliefs", which makes no sense if you know even the first thing about what behaviourism is.


ziq wrote (edited )

I also had banned them from f/anarchism for doubling down on ableism and other malarkey. They even tried to claim both reverse-sexism and reverse-ableism (apparently telling someone to stop being ableist is ableist because... idpol?).

I didn't know they'd made bigoted forums. That could have used an archive or screenshot for transparency.


Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

Yeah, sorry about that, they hadn't been around long before I deleted them, I didn't think to archive anything at the time.


plast wrote

idpol obstructs progress more often than not but u/anarchist_critic was an ass


[deleted] wrote


plast wrote

Holy shit youre a smug one. Intersectional theory, at its core, is a perspective that suggests that things like race and gender are not isolated in systems. Instead they are very much intermeshed. Many anarchists believe it is possible to "fight the the class struggle" and the "Race/gender struggle". Examples of intersectionality can be seen in the crusade against white feminism, which seeks only to improve the lives of an already privileged demographic. While it ignores the struggles of other women of colour. Intersectionality, when done right, is extremely important. Its critical to acknowledge that it isnt always "Rich v. not Rich", but rather a complex ordeal that involves gender and race. The "class struggle" and fighting for minorities doesnt have to be mutually exclusive, in fact, many say they should be heavily intertwined. Idpol is the shittier version of intersectionality. Like i said to /u/Anarcropolis idpol is essentially viewing politics through the lenses of ones identity, whether that be being black or a woman. Idpol in practice often means different groups competing to be the most "oppressed" and the creation of victim mentality that prevents real progress. It also often results in people going after specific issues related to their group and ignoring the cause. For instance, idpol in regards skin whitening products and the white beauty standard, would most likely mean a demand to see more diversity and body positivity in advertising. Should those companies concede, it would be considered a win. Intersectionality, when responding to that same issue, would recognize that by making people insecure about their skin color more products can be sold and see capitalism as the main issue instead of racism. The solution for them would be to work towards a post-capitalist society or implement socialism.

To be crystal clear: I hate idpol and support intersectionality.


rot wrote

What's your definition of idpol?


plast wrote

Politics through the lenses of different groups people identify as. But in reality, it often means liberal style oppression olympics rather than actual progress. Idpol encourages a victim mentality and actions that are meant more for getting more social capital rather than actually helping people. From the marxist perpespective, idpol serves as an obstacle as it cause people to see themselves as a member of an oppressed specific group rather than as part of the lower class. I dont use idpol as a synonym for "lol stop complaining minorities".