Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Jace, Extat]

On 5/24/2023 at 10:42 AM, sologdin said:

trying to call out specific actions or factions on the left that I find illiberal,

good thread.  it's likely correct to focus on conduct, over something nebulous like character. faction is a bit different, and has a bit of a rightwing pedigree. it might be difficult, if one is rigorous, to identify a purported group with the offending conduct of one of its alleged members.  

this thread needs better pejoratives than assholes. it might skip old soviet nomenclature (left and right species of opportunist, revisionist, and so on), as well as disfavored national terms such as philistine, byzantine, &c. i prefer to start with a term describing the objective effect of the doctrine underlying the conduct subject to critique, prefix it with a class signifier, and then qualify it further with an ersatz psychological term--lumpenized antisocial nihilism is fairly standard. am not sure however what tripartite designation fits here, mostly because the object is not obvious. 

defining the object of critique is accordingly necessary, and that object can only be identified by setting up a standard against which it might be measured unceasingly and perhaps thereunder found wanting.  the standard can't be merely aesthetic--so finding someone 'annoying' will be best kept to oneself, lest one be revealed conclusively as an agent provocateur or too delicate to partake of the revolution.  

measuring conduct against a goal-oriented standard ('counter-productive') is prima facie plausible, but then it falls into russell jacoby's trap about making a fetish of success.  we know from badiou's communist hypothesis that 'failure is nothing more than the history of the proof of the hypothesis,' or so.  sometimes therefore counter-productive may be worthwhile, and we should expect quite a bit of failure before getting to the end of history.

'problematic' sounds like a reasonable metric, though its import may be limited to doctrinal disputes.  'illiberal' is an accusation that conduct adopts rightwing methods and modes. after a certain point, however, the left is contra liberalism, if construed broadly as including capitalism.  we might distinguish between progressive and retrogressive anti-capitalism, and i suppose that's marcuse's argument in repressive tolerance regarding certain forms of conduct. but then where does one draw the line? it would help to know what exactly is considered objectionable here.  if it's merely that some theorists seem fanatical, one might forgive me for thinking that objection appears plausible only in the eye of the beholder.  a principle of charitable interpretation will compel us by contrast to grant good faith intention to parties opponent and thus assume a basic rationality in their thinking; this means banishing accusations of fanaticism, insanity, and the like.

Where do you hide yourself from me? Your radiance is a salve too long denied 

 

 

Meanwhile, I don't normally read articles then comment about them here (or anywhere) but I just read something about debate judges being ideologically biased these days over on The Free Press and... 

Yo, apparently one of these judges describes herself (in, like a pre-brief for the debaters) as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and wants the debaters to KNOW that before they compete under her critique. 

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist... 

I mean, Jesus-Fuckinist-Christist

This is a judge! An "educated" authority! 

A fucking MAOIST!?!?!?!?! What the fuck did Mao stand for besides consolidation of power and murdering fifty million of his own people? 

 

ETA: and, assuming it's not a typo on the article writer's part, this person spelled "rightist" as "rightest" when saying she wouldn't vote for any rightist arguments. Out of hand. Pre-presentation. She wants you to KNOW this about her. That's fuckin wild. 

So glad I thought selling my life to the state was worth a ticket to such pathways of enlightenment. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Secretary of Eumenes

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

Where do you hide yourself from me? Your radiance is a salve too long denied 

 

 

Meanwhile, I don't normally read articles then comment about them here (or anywhere) but I just read something about debate judges being ideologically biased these days over on The Free Press and... 

Yo, apparently one of these judges describes herself (in, like a pre-brief for the debaters) as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and wants the debaters to KNOW that before they compete under her critique. 

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist... 

I mean, Jesus-Fuckinist-Christist

This is a judge! An "educated" authority! 

A fucking MAOIST!?!?!?!?! What the fuck did Mao stand for besides consolidation of power and murdering fifty million of his own people? 

 

ETA: and, assuming it's not a typo on the article writer's part, this person spelled "rightist" as "rightest" when saying she wouldn't vote for any rightist arguments. Out of hand. Pre-presentation. She wants you to KNOW this about her. That's fuckin wild. 

So glad I thought selling my life to the state was worth a ticket to such pathways of enlightenment. 

Sounds like you can easily game the system, just show up with a sack full of the heads of some local landlords and a can of Barkeeper's friend to be ready to polish your debate trophy 

[James Arryn]

17 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Wait, were you talking to my mom?

 

Mine too, actually both of them, my father to a lesser degree. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

See my last response to VarysBlackfyre. I basically agree, and I try to get into the weeds a little bit with respect to what the US Social Left cultural milieu looks like.

Ah, yes. I confess I'd missed the key passage where I can chime in.

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The few works I've read by Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, and other CRT-related scholars have all been thoughtful, incisive, powerful stuff. But a lot of this stuff is most powerful and useful when it's viewed as a corrective pushback against more sanguine takes on sociology or criminal justice.

Right. I'd agree that critical theory has a different purpose in a society that has moved as far on the individualistic side of the spectrum as the US.
In France, where socialism was never quite abandoned, it's widely understood that critical theory is an offshoot of leftist thought. Overall though, it doesn't constitute a distinct political movement: the left is still overwhelmingly socialist, and all the intellectual stuff is just a kind of food-for-thought for people who are into it.
Whereas in the US, where socialism is still has become a dirty word, critical theory ends up leading to the development of a separate set of practical applications/measures.

From my perspective, this is peak liberalism, where even a school of thought dedicated to analysing social/cultural structures or phenomena is boiled down to the level of the individual, as if to avoid discussing momentous political change.
In other words, I'm tempted to say the US reception of critical theory is due to the trouble Americans have in truly embracing socialism and revolutionary ideals. Capitalism, the heart of the problem, being associated with "americanism" itself (through the myths of the "American dream" and the "self-made man"), leftist thought is sometimes condemned to derivative/guerilla tactics rather than directly focusing on political power itself. Conversely, as a Frenchman evolving in largely leftist and/or intellectual groups, I have no qualms about asserting that the entire point of leftist thinking is to eventually win political power in order to limit the private property of the means of production (a necessity in current times). In the US, I believe such a grand pronouncement might often be viewed as rather extreme, and not voiced in many places ; in France, it would generally be viewed as trite and common.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Rippounet

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Just reading the OP, one immediate reaction;

Yes, both sides have extremes and both extremes can be destructive/counterproductive and can engage in some similarities in behaviour. But a big difference Left to Right is how they get there: the extreme on one side is much more likely to come from a history of oppression or at least…making up a word here, disprivilege , and the extreme of the other more from one of privilege or being an oppressor. 

So in a way it’s a difficult discussion partly because to dismiss the extremists on the left is to at least in part dismiss many who have the most first-hand experience with the kinds of dynamics/systems the left as a whole wants to eliminate. Whereas dismissing the extremes of the right is much more likely to dismiss many with the most first-hand experience of privilege and/or partaking in oppression.

So like take as an extreme, a POC trans person…they are probably more prone to seeing racism or gender bigotry everywhere, and blame any misdeed by someone as being grounded in the biases they are regularly faced with, including of course times where there may have been rational explanations for someone’s behaviour being motivated by something not related to bigotry AND there are times where bigotry is the most likely explanation, but not the specific bigotry that ‘extremist leftist’ has themselves been subjected to and therefore sees first ~ everywhere. 

Lots of great things to think about.

To what extent does the "orthodoxy" and panic I'm talking about reflect trauma from people who were victimized, marginalized, and discriminated against? I don't know, but it's got to be at least part of it.

Like the uncritical certainty that often comes with youth, I would be more critical of the norms and expectations that communities set up that may exacerbate and increase likelihood of panic among traumatized people. For instance, if the language people use is stripped of any meaningful way to think about relative magnitudes of bigotry/harm/some other transgression, then there will be no real way to gain a sense of perspective, and naturally more people will be provoked into a state of panic.

It's important to be compassionate toward the plights of others, and I agree that that compassion and consideration is huge part of what separates the left from the right. I do think that some of what I'm criticizing could be construed as circumstances when concern for others and harm reduction runs unchecked and turns into a vice rather than a virtue. Almost like an auto-immune disorder of kindness.

And there are other factors that do need to be considered beyond the reduction of felt harm. Maurice Mitchell is actually on the ground as a social justice activist, so I will quote his stance, which carries more weight than mine.

"To be clear, personal identity and individual experience are important. And while it is true that the “personal is political,” the personal cannot trump strategy nor should it overwhelm the collective interest. Identity is too broad a container to predict one’s politics or the validity of a particular position. There are over 40 million Black folk in the US. Some have great politics, some do not. One’s racial or gender identity, sex, or membership in any marginalized community is, in and of itself, insufficient information to position someone in leadership or mandate that their perspective be adopted.

People with marginal identities, as human beings, suffer all the frailties, inconsistencies, and failings of any other human. Genuflecting to individuals solely based on their socialized identities or personal stories deprives them of the conditions that sharpen arguments, develop skills, and win debates. We infantilize members of historically marginalized or oppressed groups by seeking to placate or pander instead of being in a right relationship, which requires struggle, debate, disagreement, and hard work. This type of false solidarity is a form of charity that weakens the individual and the collective. Finding authentic alignment and solidarity among diverse voices is serious labor. After all, “steel sharpens steel.”

The "steel sharpens steel" part is an important factor in the larger fight against the right. We need to be kind and compassionate, but we also need to balance that with a commitment to the truth, which we need to get at by civilly challenging one another and coming up with the best accounts and solutions. And to a commitment to the most practical and substantial gains against the right. Related to harm reduction, I also think of Van Jones' take on safety culture: 

"My parents, and Monica Elizabeth Peak’s parents were marched, they dealt with fire hoses! They dealt with dogs! They dealt with beatings! You can’t deal with a mean tweet?! You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless, but obnoxious and dangerous. I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset, and then to learn how to speak back. Because that is what we need from you in these communities.”

Not to mention, plenty of the obnoxious stuff comes from the self-stated allies of traumatized or marginalized folks. White well-educated, able-bodied, cisgendered, reasonably well off people who should know better than to lean into the politics of panic.

Now, how do you engage with someone who is being absolutist and maybe aggressive in the advancement of their views, especially if you think this person is traumatized, or is coming from real experience of marginalization? I can't say for sure. But a step one at a broader level would be reaffirming values and norms that encourage civil disagreement among team members in an activist space, like what Maurice Mitchell is trying to do. If the value that people rally around is simply the reduction of perceived harm, or the probable presence of marginalization based on group-level data, well...then there's no good way to push back against bad ideas, or even voice misgivings, if they're there.

I fully agree that this stuff is very difficult, and thorny.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It may be unfair to say but my eyes glazed over.

this feels like the type of moralistic rant conservatives give when disparaging talk of climate change or evolution as religious. 

That's a rather ungenerous take on what TrackerNeil said, given the passage that preceded the line you quoted:

"This wasn't about the accuser in question; it's about the ability of leftists being able to raise reasonable questions without worrying about stepping on an ideological land mine. While it's true that a person's history of perjury doesn't mean they are  currently lying, it's not unreasonable to question their trustworthiness. The reaction in that room, by many, was that the question was not only unreasonable, but sexist, racist, classist, bigoted, hateful, misogynist...the list goes on. "

I made it clear in an earlier comment that the situation regarding BelieveWomen is complicated, given the real failures of the justice system and larger culture that drive people to despair, and to look for alternative ways to get justice. But TrackerNeil is talking about people shaming and silencing for raising questions about possible reliability of the one person given their history. Something like that should not be out of bounds.

Not to mention: there is a bad faith version of every stance and argument under the sun. Nevertheless, good faith versions of those stances or arguments usually also exist, and the presence of the former does not invalidate the latter.

TrackerNeil's complaint was made in good faith, and deserved a more serious response.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

A fucking MAOIST!?!?!?!?! What the fuck did Mao stand for besides consolidation of power and murdering fifty million of his own people? 

Yeah, I do tend to focus internal critiques on the Cultural Left these days, but that's because they have the most presence and cultural cache in the US. If we ever do veer more forcefully back into primarily advancing economic progress, it's a given that more neo-Maoists and other weirdos would come out of the woodwork. I'm fine with fringe people being fringey, as long as they remain on the fringe.

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

I know this is a bit tangential to this thread, but this isn't necessarily a question that you'd get accurate answers on. Many people are motivated to not realize and/or not admit that they have changed their minds on important topics, because they don't want to perceive themselves or have others perceive them as having been stupid and/or morally questionable for having held the previous opinion. And we know from polling data that on at least some social issues a great many people have changed their minds -- the shift to acceptance for both interracial and same-sex marriage in the United States happened way more swiftly than can be explained just by older cohorts dying and being replaced by younger ones. Millions of people have to have really changed their minds on those issues. And I think people on the Left would be just as susceptible to not realizing or admitting it when their mind has changed as anyone else. 

I think that's a fair point. I think what I meant (but did not say) is that I don't think people are convinceable in the sense that you talk them in or out of a belief. I think people change their minds when they are emotionally ready to do so, and I don't think that has much to do with whatever rational arguments one proffers. It's not as if proponents of same sex marriage suddenly came up with The Right Argument; I think Americans just got more comfortable with gay people in general, which probably had as much to do with gay people coming out as it did with suasion. 

Also, I never discount the influence of opinion leaders in politics. When Joe Biden and Barack Obama endorsed SSM, Democrats really moved in that direction as well. I think human beings love to follow a trend but hate to be seen as following a trend. We're monkeys who do math. ;-)

[Kalbear]

I'm pretty sure most people changed their mind about gay marriage because they got personal exposure to it. More people came out both personally to them and in popular culture and that made a difference. As I said above having personal emotional connection is the way you change beliefs. It is not rational debate.

IMO, Biden and Obama moved towards SSM long after the country did. You can see that in the polling for it as well; their endorsement of it barely moved the polling needle. 

I'll say personally I am weird in that I can change my mind based on data alone. I also change my mind based on people being dicks to me in a way that is pretty odd and different to other people. I dwell on that shit long after I've had the conversation. Some of my viewpoints on things like 'hey, I'm just asking questions' changed remarkably because people were actually mean. I don't recommend that tact for most people, mind you!

Also, if you're wanting to convince people labeling them into a tribal group is probably the worst possible way to do it. Making their viewpoint into a part of their identity makes them by far the most unlikely to change or get entrenched in that viewpoint. If you want to change their mind treat their specific viewpoint as specific and unique to them and NOT as part of that 'woke mob'. 

Finally you should probably reconsider your tactic if your verbiage and plan to identify and berate people aligns heavily with Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk. 

[TrackerNeil]

deleted

Edited May 25, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[Conflicting Thought]

10 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

To the person being shot, does it matter if the person pulling the trigger is a far-right 'patriot' or a far-left adherent of ANTIFA? Both groups are quite capable of atrocities and imposing rigid dogma upon each other. 

i guess it doesnt matter but one is not like the other tho, fascist kill anyone that isnt white, antifa "kill" fascists. antifa dogma is dont be a fascist, thats an ok dogma in my book.

edited to add, if beliving all woman is an example of leftist dogma i think we are ok and in the right track

Edited May 25, 2023 by Conflicting Thought

[Phylum of Alexandria]

34 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Also, if you're wanting to convince people labeling them into a tribal group is probably the worst possible way to do it. Making their viewpoint into a part of their identity makes them by far the most unlikely to change or get entrenched in that viewpoint. If you want to change their mind treat their specific viewpoint as specific and unique to them and NOT as part of that 'woke mob'. 

I agree with this, unless we're talking about something like "You don't want to give credence to that Maoist bullshit, right?" Implying that someone is not in the group in question in order to discourage identification, even if they lean that way.

But as I said before, it's not only about persuading people, especially the people least likely to be persuaded. It's more about getting a critical mass of people to articulate priorities and expectations in a way that either curbs the likelihood of inducing righteous panic, or allows others to put checks on the more obnoxious folks shitting in everyone's tea.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

50 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

i guess it doesnt matter but one is not like the other tho, fascist kill anyone that isnt white, antifa "kill" fascists. antifa dogma is dont be a fascist, thats an ok dogma in my book.

I agree that the gun metaphor is not the best one to use in this case, given that the reality of the right wing today.

I would say this instead: The left should distance itself as far as possible from the interests, methods, or dynamics of the right.

Coalitional politics is our strength against them. Fear, division, resentment, and vigilante action is their strength against us.

Part of the right’s game is to make the left more fearful, desperate, and unhinged, in the hopes of breaking down the coalitional efficacy of our opposition to them, and also in the hope of ramping up the escalation dynamic that favors them. They don't have the votes, but they do have more militias with heavy artillery. We can't play their game, or we'll lose.

Not to mention, they're the embodiment of human weakness. Why should we want to resemble them in any way, even if it's to be in opposition to them? That's a mirror reflection we should all shudder to look at.

 

[sologdin]

some who’ve recently started treating dumb as an ableist slur for instance.

i've mentioned from time to time over the years that generally there's heavy reliance on pejoratives related to defects in cognition. they are irrational, a crude argumentum ad hominem at best.  making a metaphor out of a common disability for application to nondisabled persons might come across as motivated by discriminatory animus.

 

last time I convinced anyone of anything

i bet it's more recently than you think, but the convinced person's pride prevented them from making an admission. it's still a win even if you don't know it.  for instance, i recall on these boards several moments of realizing that my position changed through debate.  cere, some of our israeli rightists, and os, of all people, balanced my appreciation of the israel-palestinian conflict. jeff, scot, EHK, and other conservative lawyers often had good points on legal and political issues. vico on religion.  wade on military doctrine. i bet even dirjj persuaded me of something at some point.  but i probably never admitted any of it, definitely not in the moment.  these micro-revolutions occurred through confrontation with the right, which provided opportunity to correct error bilaterally, but the nature of those confrontations puffed up participants (or me, anyway) with too much vanity to concede the general point.  consider this post therefore a self-criticism.

 

purity-over-politics, identity-obsessed, social-justice faction on the left

the vanity aforesaid comes with the identity politics.  i can't recommend strongly enough lukacs' destruction of reason. it traces a history of the relation of rightwing epistemology founded on anti-rational and anti-empirical ideas, such as intuition and revelation, and connects them with support for reactionary politics.  the connection to identity politics is the modern insistence on a type of knowledge that can only be known through identity--such as one crafted by the experience of oppression.  this sounds like an empirical idea, an experience creating a posteriori knowledge, except that it's often presented as not subject to criticism by or even communication to those who lack the experience. that's basically old-fashioned intuition and revelation, specialized knowledge that others can't see or interrogate.  to attempt to interpret or critique might be considered an additional affront.  i prefer fanon's idea of liberation theory, according to which oppression deforms its objects, creating dependencies and antagonisms. this type of rationale means that some deference is not due to identity, to the extent that the identity is crafted by imperialism. this is one part of all critical theory, including CRT--no uncritical acceptance of reported experience.

 

What the fuck did Mao stand for 

it's less about him personally than how chinese doctrine developed in the west.  people's war, three worlds, cultural revolution, peasants as agent of revolution, and so on.  one can condemn the failures of the great leap forward while still adhering to the cultural revolution idea of making oneself both the arrow and the target, say. it gets crazier than that--badiou, for instance is a maoist-platonist.  that's totally wtf but he's still awesome to read. 

 

ETA--

White well-educated, able-bodied, cisgendered, reasonably well off people who should know better than to lean into the politics of panic.

nevertheless, privilege doctrine is just a species of ideology critique.  false consciousness works like dubois' veil, descending across the mind to prevent perception and comprehension.  if, that is, experience produces a certain type of knowledge, the lack of that experience will create a dearth of knowledge based specifically on these sorts of characteristics. likely therefore the very privileged person described supra is entitled to quite a bit of patience, as their accumulated benefits render them unable to perceive and comprehend the hardships of others. we might thus consider this superlative constellation of privilege to be a mentally disabling condition. such a person might deserve collective assistance and empathy.

Edited May 25, 2023 by sologdin

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Yeah, it's important not to get too carried away with the sentiment. I think you and I had talked about that Intercept article on progressive organizational unrest, and it's true that it wasn't all ideological puritanism that was to blame. And beyond other political considerations, some of the gripes of those people contributing to the unrest were actually valid. Which makes it a tougher needle to thread.

I found myself in a general sense agreeing with the article—it corresponds to what I’ve witnessed.

one part however just irked me on Biden’s inability to do more mid-summer 2022

Progressive organizations could have been complete lock stepped in terms conducting actions to furthering their overarching shared goals—that wouldn’t have meant a damn thing due to(for a lack of a better word) moderate democrats who refused to use their power with the justification of not wanting to alienate more centrist, and conservatives. 

7 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If you're asking me why I chose Woke and still think it's not a terrible choice to use, well, the most important reason is because it's a word where most people I talk to know precisely what I mean,

I’m asking you to acknowledge that if something doesn’t fit a definition of woke yet you still call it that acknowledge it.

If it doesn’t follow someone other’s definition you can rebuke it as irrelevant or ignore it.

7 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

When I say "most people," I am talking about people I talk to face to face, who are not very online, and are mostly disengaged from political activity beyond voting (...probably). I don't quite like term "slacktivist," but it's out there in the world, in use, at least in online writing, so I used it.

I don’t know you’re social circle but I wager if you ask them to actually articulate what they’re talking about when they refer to something as woke they probably will give a definition less succinct than even what passes for conservative thought leaders give and not cover most of what they call woke.

Really for any political term or phraseology they use. 
 

Ask the average person to define liberal and they’d give a similar vapid definition based off vibes.

7 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But ask any person who's not very online, and the picture they paint will look a lot like those obnoxious Twitter progressives and their Diet Woke recipe.

This may be you projecting your view of woke onto people whose it derisively.

Idk how online the average Fox News viewer is, the median age is 68, but what the political pundits they listen to for news call woke usually does in look like Twitter progressives, also people just holding drag queen story, also trans women existing, also America becoming less white.

7 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Woke or not Woke, it would be nice to have some sort of commonly understood language from which conversations can start.

True.

 

7 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

In terms of the self-identity thing, perhaps a more pithy way of stating it would be: it would be convenient for the sake of distinction if there were such a thing as the ScotFal club, but instead we have to look for the people who see themselves as typical Scots telling their neighbors that they are not truly Scotsmen. 

The problem is for the fallacy to be made someone has to prescribe an essential attribute to what it means to be progressive.

If I say “no progressive would mock electoralism”I’d be committing a fallacy because some progressives by the definition as I understand it to do just that.

If I just say progressives believe that there are significant social injustices for racial minorities, sexual minorities, trans people, and women that need to be addressed systematically. It wouldn’t the follow I’m a hypocrite if I say a person who says for instance no-fault divorce was a mistake isn’t a progressive.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

That's a rather ungenerous take on what TrackerNeil said, given the passage that preceded the line you quoted:

I’ll admit it’s less of strong intelligent dissection of the merits of what’s been said and more a description of my reaction while reading it.

4 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But TrackerNeil is talking about people shaming and silencing for raising questions about possible reliability of the one person given their history.

Again unless the history is particularly relevant to the alleged victim’s accusations against the “beloved” politician then no I don’t think it is and yes I do think it’s okay to shame people for such behavior. 
The victim hasn’t conducted herself as a paragon of honesty in the past will always be the case. 

You know a woman who accuses Biden of sexual assault is a tankie who I personally hate.  I’ll hate it if a person points to her lies on China’s or Russia’s crimes as reason to say she’s lying about getting raped by Biden or argue an increased probability of it.

Im not saying the accusations are true, I’m trying to eludicaye why a way they’re being rebuffed is dangerous.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Phylum of Alexandria]

28 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m asking you to acknowledge that if something doesn’t fit a definition of woke yet you still call it that acknowledge it.

If it doesn’t follow someone other’s definition you can rebuke it as irrelevant or ignore it.

Sorry, I still don't think I am getting what you're asking. So I can try to answer, but if it sounds like a non sequitur and you want a better answer, I'm gonna need a pretty substantial re-articulation of what you're getting at.

If something doesn't fit which definition of woke? There are at least 4 that I can think of. The original woke was about Black Americans staying vigilant in the face of oppression; the diet version was used as a badge of ideological purity among a broader coalition of social justice progressives (more of "blue pill" badge of awakening than vigilance); most people who are not strongly invested in politics now use the term as a pejorative to indicate the silly/annoying/creepy excesses of that same group; and the MAGA right uses it in that sense, plus adrenochrome baby operations, RINO Republicans, and whatever else they want to fearmonger about.

Anyway, language always has the potential to shift. I take a very pragmatic approach to language. If I'm talking to someone who objects to a term or a framing, I'm happy to try to settle on a new term or a new framing. But I'm also not sorry having tried it, unless we're talking about younger me using a word like "retarded" or something. And if it's convenient for the conversation I'm having, yes, I will still use Woke to talk about the excesses of identity representation and grievance politics. Especially because there aren't any viable substitutes at the moment. I wouldn't allow any daylight between the scaremongering versions of the right wing and what I would be talking about, but I use what words work for the purpose of communication.

48 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The problem is for the fallacy to be made someone has to prescribe an essential attribute to what it means to be progressive.

If I say “no progressive would mock electoralism”I’d be committing a fallacy because some progressives by the definition as I understand it to do just that.

If I just say progressives believe that there are significant social injustices for racial minorities, sexual minorities, trans people, and women that need to be addressed systematically. It wouldn’t the follow I’m a hypocrite if I say a person who says for instance no-fault divorce was a mistake isn’t a progressive.

Well, don't get too carried away on the No True Scotsman analogy. I was using it as shorthand to illustrate the point of how people identify relative to other people. But the people I'm talking about try to silence and otherize people in their own progressive communities who don't adhere to their particular vision of progressivism. Sure, if Kanye West suddenly starts calling himself a progressive, that doesn't magically make it so. But if there are different subsets of progressives with differing aims and priorities, then that's just a pluralistic community.

39 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again unless the history is particularly relevant to the alleged victim’s accusations against the “beloved” politician then no I don’t think it is and yes I do think it’s okay to shame people for such behavior. 
The victim hasn’t conducted herself as a paragon of honesty in the past will always be the case. 

You know a woman who accuses Biden of sexual assault is a tankie who I personally hate.  I’ll hate it if a person points to her lies on China’s or Russia’s crimes as reason to say she’s lying about getting raped by Biden.

It's perfectly reasonable to push against someone's suspicion of a woman's account of rape, arguing that someone's past actions in a separate matter shouldn't be held against them. The example of the person you personally hate would be a good one to drive the point home.

It's not at all reasonable to silence or shame someone for raising a concern like that. It's not common, but people do lie, or confabulate. Jussie Smollett faking his attack being one of the more famous instances of this. Poor mental health can sometimes take you down some strange roads. That doesn't mean we should disbelieve women. The system really is fucked up. But we also should acknowledge that a kangaroo court system can easily be abused as well. Someone like Biden could survive it, but most people would be ruined if falsely accused and ostracized.

 

[Jace, Extat]

Feeling feisty. Will weigh in. Want it or not, hear I cum:

I've been raped. I'm not, strictly speaking, a real girl... but I find the "Believe All Women" slogan to be lazy and infantilizing. Never thought it was a worthwhile tagline. Not even because I think there's a bunch of gals out there making false rape claims, but because you're -by definition- assuming out of hand that a woman might not be capable of lying. Or if she is, that it doesn't matter; the man's (or other woman's perhaps, yikes, how do we resolve that?) innocence is irrelevant in the face of an accusation. 

I don't even BELIEVE in justice and still that's a fucking appalling moral presupposition in the pursuit of equality and protection of all persons. ALL persons. I think Bill Maher said "governing by hashtag" when talking about terminally online liberals and their concepts of social constructiveness: Correct.

 

Drag Queen Story Hour- I've referenced this once before. I think I said something along the lines of "I just hope parents are taking their kids to the library independent of the freak show." 

I do not understand what it is about Drag Queening that is supposed to link to teaching kids to read. This legitimately confuses me, except that it is -obviously- a vehicle by which to advance public pro-somethingness or other. What is it, exactly, about a garishly accoutered, frankly whorishly, outfitted gentleman reading a picture book that is so precious to liberals that conservative discontent over this (in my opinion fucking weird) activity is so allegedly revealing as to their horridness as a people? Serious question. Please educate me, because I'm a trans person. I rode my bike to the library every fucking day (often to talk to a lot of y'all, no internet) when I was young. I think it's fucking weird. I'm not disputing your right to expose your kids to whatever weirdness you wanna; but I'll stick my neck out in this space saying I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with a conservative, liberal, or anything-at-all parent who doesn't understand what the fuck that's all about.  

 

The drag queen hour, more than anything else maybe, is a thing that makes me nervous about blowback. I just don't understand it, and actually have a hard time not-understanding why someone might think it's inappropriate: Not exactly age-appropriate, no matter your ideology 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Secretary of Eumenes

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The left should distance itself as far as possible from the interests, methods, or dynamics of the right.

I think I get the spirit of what you’re trying to say but the way you’ve stated would kinda negate the premise of your op right?

The right is generally more willing to overlook idealogical discrepancies for a time being while they push back entities and causes they hate even more and uses woke disparagingly.

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Part of the right’s game is to make the left more fearful, desperate, and unhinged, in the hopes of breaking down the coalitional efficacy of our opposition to them, and also in the hope of ramping up the escalation dynamic that favors them.

Part sure. But bigger part is instilling a sense of apathy towards their growing authoritarianism and instilling the idea that the true threats to freedom of speech and other pretty phrases is some woke college students. 
 

the don’t say gay bill was defended by even self-professed “liberals” as being not as bad as people said—it’d just meant teachers can’t give any instruction to  1-3 graders! Then it was 1-12 graders. And now whole list of books have been shunted from the library for Lgbt friendly deems and a teacher is under investigation for showing a Disney with a gay character and barely a whiff talk from the “liberal” media. 
 

Also instilling a sense of apathy/hostility of more left wing people to the Democratic Party and institutional power.

Is Jimmy dore woke to you? Briana grey joy? I’m assuming you know who these people are and how militantly they go after democrats and liberals as too weak willed and two faced to accomplish anything. 

40 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, don't get too carried away on the No True Scotsman analogy. I was using it as shorthand to illustrate the point of how people identify relative to other people. But the people I'm talking about try to silence and otherize people in their own progressive communities who don't adhere to their particular vision of progressivism.

Eh depending on their view I can be fine with this. 

40 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Sure, if Kanye West suddenly starts calling himself a progressive, that doesn't magically make it so.

If he did I assume you’d hope progressives and liberals, leftists would keep up, the shaming of the virulent anti-Semite. Least until he reforms.

Another advantage the right has is this willingness to forgive out of practically and love bomb people as they go right. 

40 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But if there are different subsets of progressives with differing aims and priorities, then that's just a pluralistic community

True to an extent I do think intersectional thought is crucial to avoid oppression Olympics.

You know the trans are getting too much attention where is the respect  for the gays? If we shut up about them maybe we’d get more support from straight people. 

The gays and trans getting too much attention, where’s the respect for black people? Maybe if attack them as coddled babies and degenerates we’ll get people to reorient attention issues that affect us.

All this identity politics is getting too much attention when I cis-het white guy am struggling to pay for insulin. If we just dropped all that social justice crap we’d probably get the necessary reforms to keep me from dying.

40 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's not at all reasonable to silence or shame someone for raising a concern like that. It's not common, but people do lie, or confabulate.

It’s not uncommon, it’s a universal thing that any cognitive and  mobile person has done and will continue to do.

You misunderstand—my problem isn’t pushing forward the idea that a person could be lying about being sexually assaulted—it’s utilizing irrelevant instances of the accusers perceived  moral failures to discredit them.

I recall an instance where a female rapper lied about having a sexual relationship with she accused of shooting at her. She did lie about the sexual relationship—that doesn’t mean she lied about getting shot by the person who shot at her.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

do not understand what it is about Drag Queening that is supposed to link to teaching kids to read.

Oh it can help in the process  normalizing gender non-conformity to children as they grow older to not immediately alarm or disgust at someone being gender nonconforming on a smaller scale

Though I do think it’s necessary to go much further in the inoculation as to avoid equating gender non-conformity with a clownish performance—though that’d still be a step up from how the right has chosen to mark drag queens which is ubiquitously would be child rapists and secret communists.

Bigotry is often grounded in a infantile sense of disgust towards the unfamiliar or different.

20 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

What is it, exactly, about a garishly accoutered, frankly whorishly, outfitted gentleman reading a picture book that is so precious to liberals that conservative discontent over this (in my opinion fucking weird) activity is so allegedly revealing as to their horridness as a people?

From what I’ve seen they’ dress as modestly as the standard clown, or Disney Princess actor when performing to kids.

Ever see young kids go up to and inspect a Ronald McDonald statue? It’s fun to watch.