Comments

-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

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.

-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

anarchist_critic wrote

Was that aimed at me or ziq?

In case you didn't notice:

hey fucknut, eat my shit (ziq) so you're the clown (ziq) Peak brocialism (selver) Fuck you. Go back to Reddit (zzzzxxxyyyy) It's very hard to believe that you're writing any of this in good faith (Tequila Wolf) you have no politics to engage with (ziq) smug privileged piece of shit (ziq) bro (ziq) utter nonsense (ziq) You're full of shit. (therealmidnite)

You going to do something about this? Or is your Third Way tone-policing and zero tolerance of expressions of anger restricted to people who disagree with you?

-3

anarchist_critic wrote

"Brocialism and manarchism are umbrella terms for sexists within the radical left. Specifically used for those who believe that the creation of a socialist, Marxist, or anarchist system will inevitably bring about gender equality and that therefore no measures need to be taken other than the destruction of the hierarchy imposed by class."

When did I say this?

"Brocialism is the political, social, and economic ideology of those who claim to have Socialist or Communist leanings, but whose behaviour or beliefs are hypocritically sexist. A brocialist will probably even claim to be a feminist, and actively supportive of women's equality, sometimes in the same moment that they treat women like dirt."

At what point have I treated women like dirt?

-5

anarchist_critic wrote

OK, here's some political claims.

People aren't reducible to their attributes or subject-positions.

Each individual has different experiences. Positionality is irrelevant to this.

The existence of police, prisons, schools, and work are just as much "structural oppressions" as racism or sexism.

Zero tolerance is authoritarianism. Perspectivism requires situational nuance.

Different white people think differently. There is no "white reason" or "white assumptions".

Different black people think differently. There is no "black experience" or "black point of view" or "black view of racism".

Whether something's racist is best determined by looking at observable patterns and not by reference to anyone's experience or positionality.

Oppressions such as race and gender are effects of spooks, and reinforcing their importance reinforces the spook.

Domestic violence is a downward displacement of legitimate anger with social level oppression, not a primary structure in its own right.

Disagreeing with someone's claims is not "silencing", "violence", or "erasure". It is not a threat to the person's existence, because we don't have to be agreed with by everyone to exist.

Criminalising things aids a bigger enemy so as to score victories over smaller enemies.

Criminalising things does not make them any less likely to happen. Sometimes it makes them more likely to happen.

Imposing a spook as more important than someone's uniqueness is oppressive, whether it's done by a "privileged group" or an "oppressed group".

Rebut away, motherfucker. (Hint: "you're shit" and "eat my shit" aren't rebuttals).

-5

anarchist_critic wrote

Your tears taste so sweet. I am literally rolling on the floor laughing right now.

No one should be indulging your nauseatingly obnoxious theater.

Says the guy/gal/whatever who keeps posting idpol baitzkrieg then getting butthurt from the fallout.

So tell me, how are you and your tiny coterie of militant idpols going to overthrow the useless white reactionaries who apparently make up most of your country?

You've rejected individual freedom and egoism, you've rejected human rights, you've rejected class struggle, you've rejected just about anything that might appeal to anyone who isn't both 1) from a Certified Oppressed Group (TM) and 2) educated in the correct ways of articulating their experience... aside from a handful of guilt-ridden white college kids who'll act as your cannon fodder. I seriously wanna hear how you think you're gonna make an insurrection, revolution, whatever out of this.

-4

anarchist_critic wrote

According to anarchism, oppression is still oppression when you do it backwards. "Brocialism" is dismissing something based on the (perceived) gender of the speaker rather than the content of what's said. It belongs in the same dustbin as "feminazi" and "Jewish science" and all the other irrelevant ad hominem attacks on incidental features of the speaker.

-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

anarchist_critic wrote

You really can't see how you're alienating everyone with this bullshit, can you?

Seriously, I am LOLing at how the best you can do is throw out the words "nonsense", "shit" and "whiteness" and deny me the labels of post-leftist(TM) and radical(TM). You literally have no arguments, just brand-labelling.

At least half of America hates you so much, they'd rather vote for a fascist than vote for a moderate version of your kind of politics. It's time you figured out why that is.

1

anarchist_critic wrote

Well, there's lots of reasons people don't contribute. Yes, a belief in rewards is one of them. Others include time pressure (from overwork and social obligations), illness, depression, certain disabilities, lack of "skills", lack of self-confidence, and all kinds of attitudes towards the people doing the work (from hero-worship to resentment and "feeling excluded"). The thing is, a lot of initiatives keep running in spite of a lot of the participants not contributing. Yes, some fold. They fold at the point where the core group burn out, or the resources needed are greater than those the core group can put in. A lot of others keep going. I think there's less energy now than in the recent past, but the main reason is that everyone's overworked and overstressed. It's a lot easier to put energy into projects when you have a stable job with low hours or better still, you're managing to survive without working.