Wank Dad 2: Electric Wankaloo

[Momo]

shosta is proof that being relentlessly sassed by me builds character

well, then you have to take responsibility for Kosma too 

[BIONIC]

ok leadbelly... I have made a checklist of statements pertaining to issues both modern and historical and I'd like you to list either "agree" or "disagree" next to each one, with an optional ONE sentence of clarification (please use very sparingly). Within each section, I've tried to keep the point of view consistent. Here they are:

[public spending]
- If you earn more, you should pay more in taxes.
- The rich are not taxed highly enough in my country.
- It's shameful that people are allowed to make money simply by virtue of having wealth (stocks, rent, loans).
- Universal healthcare is a good idea.
- We should never privatize education.
- Higher education should be free, just like primary and secondary education are.

[identity issues]
- Racism is alive and well in my country.
- Systemic racism contributes to the continued oppression of racial minorities.
- Undocumented immigrants who have been living in my country should have some kind of legal status.
- Gender is a social construct and people should be free to identify as male or female.
- Human sexual preference is mostly biologically determined.
- Gay marriage should be legal.
- You should not be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual preference.
- Ditto, but for sexual identity.
- Ditto, but for race or gender.

[women's rights]
- Women have just as much of a right as men to be in the workplace.
- Contraception and abortion procedures should be legal (up to the third trimester).
- Abortion should be legal even in the third trimester.
- The cost of childcare is a major barrier for women to enter the workforce. We need public daycare or daycare vouchers.
- #MeToo is an important cultural movement.

[islam]
- People from majority muslim countries often have certain values which are fundamentally incompatible with western values.
- The refugee crisis in Europe is doing long-term damage to European society.
- Liberals are too quick to stand up for refugees from war-torn countries.
- We do not have a responsibility for fixing these countries or taking their needy.
- Christopher Hitchens was a brilliant debater.

[economy]
- Unions are, for the most part, a good idea.
- Laws that forbid workplaces from forcing employees to join unions are anti-union and should be opposed. [this used to say "Right to Work", which means something different in the UK, sorry]
- The government should provide a federal job guarantee because there is so much unemployment and so much infrastructure and community work that needs to be done.
- BREXIT is not a good idea.
- Free trade is generally good.
- CEOs make way too much money for what they actually do (nothing).

[climate]
- Climate change is real and anthropogenic.
- We should fund green technology.
- We should mobilize the nation to reduce our carbon output by a certain amount by a certain date.
- We should help depopulate Bangladesh into surrounding areas because it's going to be underwater and it's our fault.

[war and peace]
- My country should not sign a no-first-use promise for the use of nuclear weapons (my country should never use nuclear weapons first).
- My country's military protects my freedom.
- Saddam Hussein had to be deposed.
- If my country leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will come back and my country will be at risk again.
- China is a threat to global peace.
- The US military should stay in South Korea.
- The US should overthrow the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
- My country should maintain its current level of defense spending.

[general liberal issues]
- My country puts far too many people in jail.
- Flagburning is a right.
- The death penalty is wrong and should be abolished.
- Irrespective of Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism, Palestine is illegally occupied.
- The sanctions on Venezuela are needlessly compounding its economic crisis.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scientific socialism]
- The industrial processes, especially supply chains with numerous levels of intermediate goods, are becoming increasingly more centrally planned by the firm owners, even and especially when these supply chains span multiple continents. This contradiction within the modern free market economy is empirical evidence that central planning by bureaucratic authorities in the age of computation is a perfectly efficient method of allocating resources.

- Work by economists like Hyman Minsky, Thomas Piketty, and Steve Keen, show rigorously that the existence of a privately owned finance sector produces a structurally unstable economy that is bound to produce serious economic crashes and exponentially greater inequality that is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic values. The nation's largest capital reserves must be publicly owned, from now until forever.

- When a large firm takes one component of its supply chain and moves it overseas from a developed nation to an underdeveloped one, with no change in the skillset of its labor or the efficiency of its capital, but the price of the intermediate good is still reduced by an order of magnitude, this is a deliberate act of exploitation which produces superprofits for the firm and/or superprofits for the consumer in the developed nation (and this surplus is then circulated through the rest of the economy, arbitrarily inflating its standard of living). Third world factory workers must unionize and reverse this "free trade" theft of wealth.

- The media is owned by major financial firms and operated by ruling elites and thus will always filter or distort news to serve its own interests. The public and labor must therefore own an alternative media.

- Post-USSR globalism has made income inequality even worse, both between nations, and within each nation.

- These and other contradictions will eventually lead to the end of capitalism itself.

[close]

Get a job, you dumb bitch.

[Great Rumbler]

I finally got to the part in the thread where Etiolate flips out and posts pictures of starving kids. What a legendary thread.

Etiolate always reminded people what an incredible intellectual he was and how he was so much better than everyone here, yet he ended up getting triggered off the face of the planet by Mandark, benji and Teen Vogue. And he was still triggered two days later after coming back from his first ban.

 

[Van Cruncheon]

Forget what my intentions are. What you should be concerned with is, is there merit to my argument.

you reiterate this belief a lot but it's wrong and you probably don't even believe it

Yeah. I recall going through this with you before. There seems to be a bit of a blind spot there. I find it hard to understand why there is disagreement there.

If a serial killer said the sky is blue, it doesn't mean he must be wrong because he is a serial killer. The sky is blue.

Look it is not up to me whether you agree or disagree, it is up to you. And ultimately you either see logic in an argument or you do not. What you shouldn't be doing however is looking for ways to disagree simply because of a person's political leanings or whatever.

And I genuinely believe it because I realised it is actully beneficial to do this for my own intellectual development. It does me no good in the long run to hold to falsehoods. But it is hard to see that sometimes. And we're all ultimately biased creatures which includes myself. It is hard to get around that. When you listen to someone you fundamentally diagree with it is hard to listen. What you tend to do is find ways to dismiss them. Lets say one thing they say is inaccurate. That's enough for us to dismiss everything they say. Because we don't like what they have to say to begin with.

Again though, it's when you realise it is not actually beneficial to yourself that things seem to click. Not that you will be rid of all bias, but probably more aware of you're own infallibility on that matter.

you gotta admit, ted bundy had great hair

[agrajag]

tbh Momo, it's pretty disingenuous to say we are "just looking for enemies" when people routinely pop in here to defend the likes of Alex Jones and other chuds. But yeah, everyone totally has the same views about everything.

[agrajag]

Fuck you Mandark, I'm mad all over again

IIRC I was going off your "people gotta chill, whipping your dick out in public is fine" stance from the #metoo thread.

omg, did I defend some people in the #metoo thread?

Don't you dare dig up receipts. I don't want to see them.

you seem malleable as fuck, I hope you never get approached by some cult like Tyler did

[Leadbelly]

The idea that I am being disingenious is the most ridiculous bullshit take on things of them all. Why waste my time engaging with you at all?

I mean what the fuck do you think I would get out of that? I am on some secret covert mission or something to convert you to conservatism? This is as bad as ERA seriously. I

Okay, Momo was right, you shouldn't engage with people in here, because they can't thnk outside of their own bubble. And you really can't. Like for instance the nonsense about the term far-right. And I am thinking maybe you don't understand that point because of the Eurocentric angle of it that you may not be aware of. I also think you're not trying to understand. And that is the thing.

We are in a time now in Europe where the public are on the move politically. More people are moving to the right. Right wing populism hasn't won, but it is clear it has made huge gains. There has been a trend however to just label these groups far-right. And in turn what happens is the issues that are the reason the public are on the move are not adequately being addressed. I am of the opinion that is dangerous.

I also linked a video which I guess did not get listened to, or wasn't taken seriously. Either way all I really wanted you to acknowledge was that there is a sense of logic in what is being said. What it is not for instance, is some secret covert plan to water down the term far-right so that I can express my real views in public. And now I am starting to believe that is something you people believe.

There is a sense of logic in that video. However, it is Eurocentric which is why I explained that.


People say I am being defensive, which I am. When people post in a way that can be perceived as an attack, people post defensively. However, what I am made aware of now, is in fact you are all posting defensively. Which is why you respond to me the way you do. You can't get over your own bias enough to actually genuinely engage.

So I will leave you to it in this thread.

[Oblivion]

That's not true. I started defecting from et around the beginning of May and, while I don't want to overstate my role here, I'm pretty sure him losing his only toady in that thread tilted him right over the edge just two weeks later.

i'm actually curious. at what point did you realize etoilet wasn''t a good role model anymore?

[benjipwns]

you seem malleable as fuck, I hope you never get approached by some cult like Tyler did

he already registered as a member of the Libertarian Party breh

[team filler]

 

[Leadbelly]

Well, considering you can't really engage properly with ideas you don't agree with, which you can't, as you have made me aware in this last page, maybe he flipped out because of that. Not something I would do, but fuck me.

[BisMarckie]

#free etiolate

He provided us with hours of entertainment for free

[agrajag]

I'm sort of sad I missed reactionary shosta, this is why you should never take a hiatus from the bore

Keep in mind, this was after he built up his reputation as "Kristoffer the one non-reactionary and even-keeled Era mod."

[Leadbelly]

Holy crap, I forgot that we've already been here with Leadbelly, the furtive pygmy, so easily forgotten.

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45437.msg2429400#msg2429400

Shame on Mandark for not activating his photographic memory and linking us back to his posts from a year ago, and instead using it to besmirch me, an innocent bystander.

Also not sure what point is being made here. Reading back my own post, there is a sense of logic in what I am saying is there not? You don't have to agree with the post, but it is not about that, it is whether the post comes from a point of logic enough that there is reason to engage. I think it does, but then I would say that. lol

Edit: It also a marxist critique of identity politics which I thought you wanted to speak about Marxism Shosta? there you go.

[Leadbelly]

Also the idea that you're not all reactionary fucktards is the funniest part. What is the dogpiling if not reactionary? The mind boggles.

[Leadbelly]

Lol why is Leadbelly so fucking triggered

I'm not triggered, I'm just annoyed at people not actually engaging seriously. It just makes the effort in responding a complete waste of time. It comes across as if reactionary. Where as reactionaries push back against progressive change, it is a percieved push back against unorthodox thought.

[Leadbelly]

then why won't you complete my survey

Well, I was going to, but then I read the thread and shit like this is said:

don't make the mistake of thinking I want to discuss bullshit like this seriously

my philosophy towards all leadbelly posts

Which is fine, but then why would I waste my effort engaging exactly? I mean, you linked back to an older post of mine. Now, I'll ask a question: regardless of what you think of that post, does it seem like thought went into that post, or is it just incoherent garbage that makes no sense? I put it to you that it is a reasoned argument. And if you think the same, then you will understand why taking the time to post isn't worth it.

[jakefromstatefarm]

if someone was to talk about Enlightenment 'values' obviously they are talking about a certain set of ideas that came from that period, but not necessarily expressed by every thinker. Something like 'freedom of speech' for instance.

you were employing the phrase ‘enlightenment values’ seemingly to refer to some kind of coherent political program. If that’s true, and you’re justified in using the phrase that way, then there must be a way of distinguishing what counts as a legitimate ‘enlightenment value’ and what doesn’t. So why does the phrase signify something like ‘freedom of speech’ but not ‘providential deism’ when the latter was held by at least as many people in the 18th century and is probably more characteristic of the period? My suspicion is that you’re probably better off just saying “he values freedom of speech” or whatever; ‘enlightenment values’ sounds sexier, to be sure, but only because the term ‘enlightenment’ has been politicized so much by people with no interest in reading the period on its own terms -Pinker is a pretty great example of this.

It is the root, the fundamental liberal principle. I am not sure exactly why you are contesting it. Yes, liberalism has morphed and changed, and yes liberalism has different schools of thought. However, the very essence of liberalism is the freedom of the individual and everything stems from there.

the linked article does not say this; this is not the authors’ interpretation of liberalism. What they claim is that ‘Liberalism’ is best understood as the family of ideas that holds that restrictions on liberty must be justified.

All ‘Liberalism’, broadly speaking, entails is a commitment to a certain primacy for liberty/freedom as political values. It’s an open question how exactly that cashes out. Your assuming that ‘liberty’ just obviously means ‘liberty of the individual’ begs the question against the part of the liberal tradition that thought/thinks that liberty can inhere in groups of people, or things, like institutions. If you’re thinking to yourself, “now wait a minute, jake. Groups of people are just sums of individuals and saying that institutions are free just means that the individuals that take part in them are free, so liberty always terminates at the individual level“ then I have two responses: 1. You’re begging the question again, this time in social ontological terms. 2. Even ignoring 1., you’d be right, but only trivially so. It still hasn’t been shown why ‘individual liberty’ is more important or a more useful expression than ‘the liberty of sums of individuals’ or ‘the liberty of individuals taking part in institutions’. And if now you’re thinking that the above point is stupid and a waste of time, you’d be right again, because the strict dichotomy individualism-collectivism is a red herring and only makes sense in the context of Cold War polemics.

[agrajag]

filler found  new dad

[Leadbelly]

It seemed like you put a lot of thought but your priors assumptions were wrong and as mandark patiently explained, you misunderstood the 60s.

It was a while ago, so you would have to expain it in detail then I could respond. However, I think, which I always think actually with Mandark, but could be wrong, and stand to be corrected, that he was missing the point. The point I was really making is the universalist approach to left-wing politics in the past was more effective. The idea of uniting under common cause. I also put it to him that this is actually the real way to change. And as point of example I referenced how Martin Luther King maybe wasn't assassinated because of his civil rights work, but rather when he switched his attention from race to class. Rather it is class solidarity that the establishment fears. And that what identity politics does (modern day identity politics) and intersectionality is fragment us into greivance groups. And this in turn makes real progress as in a real radical shift in the strucutres of government harder to acheive.

That is not to say identity politics of the 60s was not needed. That wasn't the point of the argument. The point of the argument was to say that marxism and the left wing politics of the  past understood the importance of class solidarity and thus seeked a universalist approach. Or another way of putting it, common cause to mobilise.

[Leadbelly]

I will respond to you jake later.

[Momo]

tbh Momo, it's pretty disingenuous to say we are "just looking for enemies" when people routinely pop in here to defend the likes of Alex Jones and other chuds. But yeah, everyone totally has the same views about everything.

I just want you guys to get along 

[agrajag]

I get along with very few people here and on a very narrow selection of subjects

 

[Leadbelly]

Actually before I go, I also linked to a Noam Chomsky video that explained this dynamic quite well.

[Momo]

Shosta's turn around was something to see. Dude went from Squiddy tier to legitimately fun shitposter.

you guys are late to the party, I liked shosta from day 1 

[Momo]

I get along with very few people here and on a very narrow selection of subjects

 

It's easier if you delete politics from your brain, I like hating people, like transhuman, for petty reasons like being Australian better 

[El Babua]

filler found  new dad

not as entertaining imo. He feels more like the 20 year old cousin that hangs out with you even though you're like 13. 

[Mandark]

As for Peterson, it was after getting owned in April (?) and then I went to jail briefly

I think this is the first time I roasted someone so bad on the forum that they went to jail.

I'm sorry it had to be you, kid, but you're stronger for it now.

[Leadbelly]

That is not to say identity politics of the 60s was not needed. That wasn't the point of the argument. The point of the argument was to say that marxism and the left wing politics of the  past understood the importance of class solidarity and thus seeked a universalist approach. Or another way of putting it, common cause to mobilise.

We touched on this in the LF thread a while back.

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45863.msg2658498#msg2658498

Just to be clear, when I speak about identity poilitics it is very much just an encapsulation of a certain ideological perspective. So for instance the Civil Rights Movement is not the identity politics of today. So one apsect which seems regressive, to some may seem progressive, is this greater acceptance of fragility. Ideas that seem to suggest to people that words are violence. And that we need some kind of psychic comfort to shield ourselves from the cutting words that wound so deep as to traumatise us. This totally destroys any notion of the robust individual who is capable of navigating public life. As I mentioned in a much earlier post, a victim is not an actor. And certainly can't be an actor on the world stage. A victim is a subject who is acted upon. Marxism at its core was revolutionary. Yet victimhood seems like the only currency in town at the moment. And weirdly it is a calling upon the state and instituations for protection. And in turn the state now panders to these grievance groups. And so when the state panders to you, you know you're not revolting. You are not revolting. And that might be just fine, and in some sense that is progress. fine. But to be clear you are not revolting. Marxism is dead. And identity politics is the only game in town.

Social justice is not the issue for me, the issue is the ideological base in which identity politics stands. And actually it almost seems like what the individual groups are supposed to be united around, but for various reasons ends up eating itself, is feminism. Destroying the patriarchy solves the problem of everything somehow. And that is an inadequate social theory in my mind to map on to every grievance. Grievances should be dealt with in a objective manner where if there is a problem you look to find a objective cause. However, most shit ends up nebulous and is just mapped on to a narrative.

Also, on the subject of universalism I like Kmele Foster because he gives a black perspective on it. I find this helpful in me having a more complete picture on the American dynamic of identity politics and the role it should and should not have on public discourse.

https://soundcloud.com/spikedonline/kmele-foster-race-abolitionist

[Oblivion]

That is not to say identity politics of the 60s was not needed. That wasn't the point of the argument. The point of the argument was to say that marxism and the left wing politics of the  past understood the importance of class solidarity and thus seeked a universalist approach. Or another way of putting it, common cause to mobilise.

We touched on this in the LF thread a while back.

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45863.msg2658498#msg2658498

. So one apsect which seems regressive, to some may seem progressive, is this greater acceptance of fragility. Ideas that seem to suggest to people that words are violence. And that we need some kind of psychic comfort to shield ourselves from the cutting words that wound so deep as to traumatise us. This totally destroys any notion of the robust individual who is capable of navigating public life.

weren't you just bitching about lefties being too mean to ben shapiro by calling him 'far right'?

[benjipwns]

weren't you just bitching about lefties being too mean to ben shapiro by calling him 'far right'?

came from cindi posts and read this as "fat right"

[OnlyRegret]

weren't you just bitching about lefties being too mean to ben shapiro by calling him 'far right'?

came from cindi posts and read this as "fat right"

god bless these hamburgers

[Oblivion]

leadbelly's doing what i see a lot conservative/idw folk do where they try to downplay the identity politics part of the civil rights movement, which is generally the opposite of what you see taught in most classrooms (where they downplay the economics).  it's a really tricky act to pull because it would be idiotic to deny identity played a role (after all, white people had no problem voting, the VRA was designed specifically for black people), so they grudgingly concede that point. But then argue that for whatever reason, up until 1965 it was JUUUUUUUUST the 'right' amount of identity politics, but all the OTHER idpol that happened afterwards was a great perversion of mlk's dream.

which in itself is even more hilarious cause mlk also supported affirmative action and reparations, both things leadbelly more than likely despises.

[Leadbelly]

It was a while ago, so you would have to expain it in detail then I could respond. However, I think, which I always think actually with Mandark, but could be wrong, and stand to be corrected, that he was missing the point. The point I was really making is the universalist approach to left-wing politics in the past was more effective. The idea of uniting under common cause. I also put it to him that this is actually the real way to change. And as point of example I referenced how Martin Luther King maybe wasn't assassinated because of his civil rights work, but rather when he switched his attention from race to class. Rather it is class solidarity that the establishment fears. And that what identity politics does (modern day identity politics) and intersectionality is fragment us into greivance groups. And this in turn makes real progress as in a real radical shift in the strucutres of government harder to acheive.

That is not to say identity politics of the 60s was not needed. That wasn't the point of the argument. The point of the argument was to say that marxism and the left wing politics of the  past understood the importance of class solidarity and thus seeked a universalist approach. Or another way of putting it, common cause to mobilise.

So, I watched that Chomsky video you sent me and you seem to misunderstand it completely. He's saying that Americans have sanitized the civil rights movement of its class element. He is saying that it enjoyed broad popularity when the subject was equal treatment under the law and anti-discrimination but was not popular when MLK Jr. was advocating for economic justice. That ran up against the ruling power structure and so he was targeted by the FBI as a communist sympathizer in addition to being a radical organizer.

Let's be exceptionally clear about this next point: MLK Jr. was murdered by James Earl Ray because he was advocating for desegregation and the rights of African-Americans. That's it. James Earl Ray was not some secret agent of the establishment flying a false flag of racism to suppress a socialist. He was a segregationist and George Wallace supporter. He hated black black people and wanted to move to apartheid Rhodesia. There is no conspiracy here.

Concerning your broader point, I see no evidence that left identity politics is some trick by the ruling class to fracture the working class. Right identity politics certainly is used that way. But what you call left identity politics is usually the culmination of some long history of reaction against repression. The gay rights movement is the counterweight to decades of anti-gay repression. Black civil rights is a 400 year old story in the US. The Chicano movement encompassed exploitation of the latino working class and the treatment of Mexican-Americans in the entire society. I'm actually glad you brought up the 60s because in a big way, that whole decade was the height of the American left and American maoism. But - and I tried to tell you this before - it was also the height of identity politics. You think it was different back then. It was, but not because they "universalized" it by reducing the identity component. It was complete because it embraced class issues in addition to the identity issues. Modern identity politics is incomplete without those same class issues.

In the past, whenever a subject like this came up, I had a friend who used to say "why do we have to choose between class issues and identity issues? Why not do both?" It's a false choice. Do both.

It is possible he was mentioning he was assassinted during that time in passing rather than suggesting it was the reason.

Remember King was assassinated when attending a sanitation strike

Which can be interpreted obviously as suggesting he may have been assassinated for this reason. But maybe he was just pointing out that was the period he was assassinated. I will say though, I never actuually said he was or wasn't orignally:

In terms of Martin Luther King, his attention moved from race to class. This was around the time he was assassinated. Some speculate that was why he was assassinated. Organising around class was seen as a much greater danger

I simply said some speculate, which they do. For instance:

It was the issues of poverty, class and anti-war that were pushing Dr. King further in the direction of Malcolm X. For this reason, he was murdered..

https://www.marxist.com/the-death-of-martin-luther-king.htm

That said, the point I was making is that older lefties understand the importance of class solidarity. That was the argument I was making. That real change is mroe likely through organising under class than race.

And I never said identity politics is a trick by the establishment. I never suggested this at all.

[Leadbelly]

leadbelly's doing what i see a lot conservative/idw folk do where they try to downplay the identity politics part of the civil rights movement, which is generally the opposite of what you see taught in most classrooms (where they downplay the economics).  it's a really tricky act to pull because it would be idiotic to deny identity played a role (after all, white people had no problem voting, the VRA was designed specifically for black people), so they grudgingly concede that point. But then argue that for whatever reason, up until 1965 it was JUUUUUUUUST the 'right' amount of identity politics, but all the OTHER idpol that happened afterwards was a great perversion of mlk's dream.

which in itself is even more hilarious cause mlk also supported affirmative action and reparations, both things leadbelly more than likely despises.

You haven't read my argument, what you are doing, again, is reading between the lines. You are trying to figure my motives out, rather than addressing my ideas. And I have said time and time again, an argument stands on its own merits. And what is meant by that is, don't attack the opponent attack the argument.

It has absolutely nothing to do with downplaying the civil rights movement.

[Leadbelly]

Just to be clear, when I speak about identity poilitics it is very much just an encapsulation of a certain ideological perspective. So for instance the Civil Rights Movement is not the identity politics of today. So one apsect which seems regressive, to some may seem progressive, is this greater acceptance of fragility. Ideas that seem to suggest to people that words are violence. And that we need some kind of psychic comfort to shield ourselves from the cutting words that wound so deep as to traumatise us. This totally destroys any notion of the robust individual who is capable of navigating public life. As I mentioned in a much earlier post, a victim is not an actor. And certainly can't be an actor on the world stage. A victim is a subject who is acted upon. Marxism at its core was revolutionary. Yet victimhood seems like the only currency in town at the moment. And weirdly it is a calling upon the state and instituations for protection. And in turn the state now panders to these grievance groups. And so when the state panders to you, you know you're not revolting. You are not revolting. And that might be just fine, and in some sense that is progress. fine. But to be clear you are not revolting. Marxism is dead. And identity politics is the only game in town.

Social justice is not the issue for me, the issue is the ideological base in which identity politics stands. And actually it almost seems like what the individual groups are supposed to be united around, but for various reasons ends up eating itself, is feminism. Destroying the patriarchy solves the problem of everything somehow. And that is an inadequate social theory in my mind to map on to every grievance. Grievances should be dealt with in a objective manner where if there is a problem you look to find a objective cause. However, most shit ends up nebulous and is just mapped on to a narrative.

Also, on the subject of universalism I like Kmele Foster because he gives a black perspective on it. I find this helpful in me having a more complete picture on the American dynamic of identity politics and the role it should and should not have on public discourse.

I honestly don't know where to start with all these assumptions and poo-poohs. You uphold marxist class action and analysis as an imperative. At the same time, you decry feminism as a killer of all social movements, seemingly denying that marxism's founders went out of their way to develop theories of exploitation of women as a central point in current and past class conflict. Socialist rhetoric has since the very beginning relied on victimhood narratives to make a point as shosta said. If you think that the only worthwhile method of praxis in social justice is literal revolution, then...

I guess it's off for you to lend a hand in protracted people's war in the philippines then?

There are apsects of 1st and 2nd wave feminism that I like. No problem with 'feminism' per se. A problem with intersectionality, yes.

This is so tedious because I can tell you are googling desperately looking for things to get me on. I wish people would try to understand my arguments seriously and rebutt them. Obviously Marxism relies on grievance as a means to whip up support. There is a difference between genuine grievance and fostering a victimhood mentality.

It's just...

[Leadbelly]

I guess it's off for you to lend a hand in protracted people's war in the philippines then?

I will also mention this is kind of funny, because according to Oblivion my motive as a conservative is to downplay the civil rights by emphasising class struggle. Because like that is a typical argument a conservative would make... or something.

Revolution in 2019 isn't going to happen. Marxism is dead, and I imagine will never be revived. However, pushing for a change of some kind is still what needs to happen. We are only going to achieve that if we have a common cause to mobilise under. And I don't think it needs violent revolution, it just needs threat of mobilising on the streets. However, the economic crisis back in 2008 was squandered.

[Leadbelly]

Yeah I'm the one googling desperately, as the one in this conversation jumping across aisles to construct ahistoric versions of marxism, of feminism, of liberalism that happen to support his strong arguments like how " actually it almost seems like" feminism is tanking global social movements for equality.

because formulating an actual argument suggests googling? I present an actual argument (lol). And what some of you do as a respone is shit like, 'what you really mean...' and, this thing you said here is wrong, because, [link to website I just googled].

please...

[Leadbelly]

Calling Marxism dead throws a blanket "fuck you" to every left movement and government in the world inspired by it which is one of the bolder takes on revisionism I've ever seen.

So you think there is going to be a Marxist overthrow of the government any time soon then? Okay.

[Oblivion]

I guess it's off for you to lend a hand in protracted people's war in the philippines then?

I will also mention this is kind of funny, because according to Oblivion my motive as a conservative is to downplay the civil rights by emphasising class struggle. Because like that is a typical argument a conservative would make... or something.

actually, it IS something that conservatives do. both typical standard conservatives who want to sow discord, but also from rightwing marxists who despise idpol just as much as any MAGA chud.


Leadbelly, i have to ask. i know you're obsessed with edge cases of sjw 'victimization' like trigger warnings or sensitivity training or whatever, but what are your thoughts on stuff like combating police brutality, mass incarceration, restoring voting rights to minorities?

and while we're at it, since you keep claiming that i'm criticizing you for things you don't actually believe in, what ARE your opinions on reparations and affirmative action?

[Leadbelly]

I guess it's off for you to lend a hand in protracted people's war in the philippines then?

I will also mention this is kind of funny, because according to Oblivion my motive as a conservative is to downplay the civil rights by emphasising class struggle. Because like that is a typical argument a conservative would make... or something.

actually, it IS something that conservatives do. both typical standard conservatives who want to sow discord, but also from rightwing marxists who despise idpol just as much as any MAGA chud.


Leadbelly, i have to ask. i know you're obsessed with edge cases of sjw 'victimization' like trigger warnings or sensitivity training or whatever, but what are your thoughts on stuff like combating police brutality, mass incarceration, restoring voting rights to minorities?

and while we're at it, since you keep claiming that i'm criticizing you for things you don't actually believe in, what ARE your opinions on reparations and affirmative action?

You know another weird thing aabout you guys. You go all conspiratorial about my motives as if a I am a covert agent trying to sway the bore (as if like the bore is where I need to be) but then trust me to be honest about your purity tests. Which one is it?

[Oblivion]

Dude, i'm only going by what i've seen of your posts. if i'm mistaken, go ahead and explain your damn positions and i'll happily reevaluate my previous claims about you.

[Leadbelly]

Dude, i'm only going by what i've seen of your posts. if i'm mistaken, go ahead and explain your damn positions and i'll happily reevaluate my previous claims about you.

Your claims though is that I am a secret conservative. And you are giving me questions to prove whether I am a secret conservative. Do you not see the twisted logic?

And one thing you are right about. I don't think affirmative action is a good thing. I just don't. Yet, you will now use that to prove I am a secret conservative. Yet I am openly admitting it...

[curly]

I don't think you're a covert agent I just think your ideas are confused and your fetishism of rational debate is as much about staking out an identity as anyone (God I hate how the other side has no interest in logic, how they never engage in good faith). You have a child's understanding of ideas like liberalism and want us to engage with your childish caricatures of them which is tiresome as fuck.

[Leadbelly]

I have no issue with gay rights. I am pro choice.

Where on the spectrum do I fit? 

My views don't just fit neatly into a box. That isn't so uncommon.

[OnlyRegret]

I have no issue with gay rights. I am pro choice.

Where on the spectrum do I fit? 

My views don't just fit neatly into a box. That isn't so uncommon.

do this
https://8values.github.io/

[curly]

I have no issue with gay rights. I am pro choice.

Where on the spectrum do I fit? 

My views don't just fit neatly into a box. That isn't so uncommon.

damn bro you're blowing my fucking mind

[Leadbelly]

I don't think you're a covert agent I just think your ideas are confused and your fetishism of rational debate is as much about staking out an identity as anyone (God I hate how the other side has no interest in logic, how they never engage in good faith). You have a child's understanding of ideas like liberalism and want us to engage with your childish caricatures of them which is tiresome as fuck.

Which you personally don't I might add. Funny that.

[Leadbelly]

because formulating an actual argument suggests googling? I present an actual argument (lol). And what some of you do as a respone is shit like, 'what you really mean...' and, this thing you said here is wrong, because, [link to website I just googled].

please...

You don't really have an argument worth addressing, though. You've just constructed a bunch of narratives about how everyone is a victim now and it's hurting revolutionary ideology and shitting on intersectionality. I specifically used your "actually it almost seems like" phrasing because it seems like even you don't really believe the SJWs are killing real leftism line you're pushing right now.

And it's doubly bizarre because you seem to acknowledge that synthesis of so called identity issues with marxism has created some of its most successful movements which is prima facie obvious, almost all marxist revolutions of any success I can think of have come off the back of national liberation struggles.

Perhaps the reasons revolutions aren't happening in the first world is because.... material conditions aren't producing revolutionary ideology? The shift of manufacturing to the economic periphery? social-democratic welfare programs that improve material conditions just enough? fascism? imperialist hegemony? the legitimate failures of marxist revolutions used against them? more than a century of anti-worker propaganda?

no wait, i got it, throw out materialist analysis i blame everyone who looks like this ->

No, not a narrative just what is ideological taught in universities. And there are many factors that might explain why no one has the stomach for Marxism. I was arguing however, that intersectionality and current identity politics, has moved away from old marxist ideas. And, lost in all this is actually what I originally said. Do you know what I original said?

I said there are aspects of leftist thought in past that I thought was good, and better than the approach used today. I thought that approach was ineffective. THAT IS ALL. THAT IS ALL. 

[Leadbelly]

I simply said some speculate, which they do.

That said, the point I was making is that older lefties understand the importance of class solidarity. That was the argument I was making. That real change is mroe likely through organising under class than race.

Who is telling you to choose?

And I never said identity politics is a trick by the establishment. I never suggested this at all.

Looking back, I misread something. My bad. Your actual position is that identity issues are not inclusive enough to get people who are not part of that identity on board so they fracture and divide. But genosse, this is still a false choice. Look at gay rights. Straight people made the choice to stand up for gay rights because they made a moral calculation to do so. Also, gay people organized together, along with their allies, for those rights, to solve that issue specific to their collective experience. An identity issue can only divide a class if people within that class choose to become enemies to the group in question whether than allies. So it reduces, again, to the simple question of whether you are an ally (on that issue) or not.

There is good news: we live in democracies (modulo the factor of corporate influence). When you disagree with some issue, you vote against it. When you agree, you vote for it. If this hypothetical working class bloke you are thinking of was just about to reign in the finance sector, the tax evaders, and the rentiers, but the issue of, say, legitimizing sodomy turned him off, that says infinitely more about him and his alleged commitment to class issues than it does those who would put forth the identity issue in question.

I will grant you that this does apply in reverse, too. There are many times where people have had to choose whether to put aside their identity issues to advocate class ones when voting for social fascists less than agreeable people. That's a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. For latinos wondering whether ICE will bust their door down and drag their abuela out of the house, their existential issue is more important than voting for Richard Spencer who wants universal healthcare and free college. For my gay Republican roommate who interned at the state capitol, he understood that his party wasn't really with him on LGBT issues, but it was ultimately more important to him to keep the debt down , keep taxes low , and "lead from the front" . Anyway I just don't think this happens as often as you think and you're too stuck on a pink-haired straw-nonbinary-person (they/them) screaming at you about spreading your legs on the subway. This is a concrete thing so give concrete examples, it can never be solved in the abstract.

I agree with gay rights point. There was a time when there was a clear reason to mobilise. Homosexuality at one point was illegal in the law. When there are tangible causes to fight for, then yes, people will organise in solidarity. It is not so clear now, and fights not so obvious. And that's part of the problem but not the entire problem. And I do think the issue is fringe, always has been. The problem is, I think the fringe element is the one most vocal, and also the one more likely to seek certain positions within the institutions. You talk about the obvious pink-haired nutcase that shrieks nonsense. It is not one case though is it? It is more than one case. The whole 'straight white male' thing is not one person though right? It is actually thing. If I were to go to an intersectionality meeting, if I were white, which I am not, I would be expected to keep quiet to make space for minority voices to speak. This is a thing. It is divisive ultimately. And that is why we talk about it. You can say that it is overstated, but it can be understated. Google's diversity unit, it didn't happen in a vacuum right? There has to be a push for it to begin with. Which there was in the universities. It is a thing.




 

[Leadbelly]

Do you know what I original said?

yes, you said noam chomsky had classically liberal values

I said there are aspects of leftist thought in past that I thought was good, and better than the approach used today. I thought that approach was ineffective. THAT IS ALL. THAT IS ALL.

ok i can tell everyone's exhausted. let's just end this discussion here. you think there was an inclusive working class movement in the middle of the twentieth century that was less likely to alienate workers than today's hollow liberalism. some of us think that you seriously misunderstand the details of those worker movements and that your criticism of identity politics is just an attack on a strawman. I think this is a good stopping point

Okay. I am quite happy to.

[Leadbelly]

Do you know what I original said?

yes, you said noam chomsky had classically liberal values

Just one more thing. I was saying the essence of liberalism is the freedom of individual and it is from that base in a social sense Noam comes from.

anarchism would be the development of the remnants of classical liberalism

Edit: I've edited this a bit, because you actually added 'values' which is a bit different.

I also explained how this is so. Crudely, because I didn't dwell on it, but it was right there in my post about it.

[Leadbelly]

I think sometimes liberal politics has a communication issue that alienates people like you but I also think there are a lot of alternative spaces, especially the socialist ones, that are not only more constructive but manage to be, yes, intersectional - they cater to class issues and they respect identity issues as well. It's big tent politics, dawg. I dated a sociology major once whose senior thesis was just 50 pages on male privilege. Like, I get it. But it's also not the whole thing, don't think the people who scream at Jordan Peterson are at all the majority force in politics right now. The majority force in politics are the neoliberals

Just one more thing. You're joking though right? I did actually explain I wasn't actually saying that. I was saying the essence of liberalism is the freedom of individual and it is from that base in a social sense Noam comes from.

I AM EMBARGOING THIS SUBJECT

I edited that post a little. I didn't say he defined himself as a classical liberal. But then I realised you added 'values'. If anyone has spent a lot of time listening to Noam you would know that aspect of him is true.

[Leadbelly]

I'm never posting in this thread again

I have had enough too. Don't worry.

[Nintex]

I have no issue with gay rights. I am pro choice.

Where on the spectrum do I fit? 

My views don't just fit neatly into a box. That isn't so uncommon.

do this
https://8values.github.io/

I always land in the middle as a centrist
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=47.0&d=44.1&g=57.7&s=57.3

[OnlyRegret]

I have no issue with gay rights. I am pro choice.

Where on the spectrum do I fit? 

My views don't just fit neatly into a box. That isn't so uncommon.

do this
https://8values.github.io/

I always land in the middle as a centrist
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=47.0&d=44.1&g=57.7&s=57.3

I got autocracy 

[Van Cruncheon]

one of my former employees used to be a grad assistant to noam chomsky. the way she told it, noam was a misogynist and lustmonkey.

[Momo]

Closest Match: Social Libertarianism

lul
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=59.1&d=72.9&g=71.5&s=73.4

[Van Cruncheon]

i'm the degenerate buttbaby of marx and ayn rand: https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=81.1&d=75.5&g=80.8&s=88.6

[HardcoreRetro]

Libertarian-socialism is what I got.