Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

Toast Rider said:
Thanks.

Well, since you asked, I'll state my position and see if it does indeed spark conversation.

I'm not hugely informed about these things as my environment is about as 'normal' as it gets, being cis white straight and living in a very unradical environment. I've been trying to understand the politics of differnet groups but everything seems to centre around that wretched phrase SJW, and the voices I hear the most, or who seem to get broadcast the most, are of course the likes of Sargon or Dave Rubin, or Stefan Molyneux, Joe Roagan, and now Jordan B Peterson. There are plenty of others, I'm sure you know them all. They seem to spend their time shouting about free speech and how universities are run by these SJWs who hate free speech and want safe spaces etc.

You get the picture.

I have found it very difficult to understand the truth of all this. I don't believe them, to be clear. When I say I don't understand I'ms aying that I agree with things like feminism, in the sense that women are oppressed and shouldn't be, but I don't have a background in feminist theory for example. I wouldn't even know where to start (I don't read good either, so if kind souls are to recommend books, which is fine, just don't expect me to read them quickly).

I hope that's clear. For the record, I find the likes of Sargon/Rubin etc utterly mendacious, bad faith operators who aren't interested in having an honest discourse but in winding up the masses (re: Anita Sarkeesian, who seems to have spent 7 years being roundly shat on by cunts) for patreon dollars.

As you were
Click to expand...

I know exactly who you are talking about. Youtube are FULL of these types of disingenuous twats, and they make a living out of victimising themselves whilst admonishing "SJWs". I find the term SJW interesting, I had always found it to be a bit of a thought terminating cliche (like most other political acronyms) in order to "other" a group, and also to act as a smear.

In this case the Term SJW was first used I believe in atheist Youtube circles, to mean "feminists" as well as those who advocated for social justice online, but did so in an "illogical" way.

It's all part of Pwnage culture innit?

Having said that, these acronyms do eventually get absorbed into the lexicon and start to take on it's own meaning, and also, eventually, the targets of the smear start referring to themselves as such, somewhat ironically I suppose, in a bid to normalise the position. And what we end up with is an us vs them thing, in that your either WITH us, or AGAINST us.

"SJWs" are indiviudalists, post moderninsts, and IDpolers, just by the very nature of that they are currently leading the "left" in the internet culture wars. So if you're not an SJW you must be the opposite? An alt-righter.

And you see this used quite often as tropes. The moment you see someone disagree with your "side" you are sullied and outcast and must be a fascist cus what's the alternative?

When I was more active on Youtube, I kinda thought Anita had some salient points, but a lot of her delivery was bullshit, and there was a lot of sneering and condescension, as well as stuff that was just, well, weak (there's a long thread on here about the spat between her and Tunderf00t) - but I couldn't really say it publicly on youtube because, as someone who had been labelled an SJW, I was expected to toe the line, word for word or be outcast from the group.

So while SJW is an alt-right term, I think there is a group in online circles certainly, who do fit the bill of mantra-repeating, ideologues, just like the alt-right quite frankly. I don't consider them to be left wing in the slightest (though many will identify as anarchists - though they've never read any in their lives).

I think what this forum, of relatively older, well read people forget is that a lot of youth get their politics from online sources, and it has to be accessible. So while the video I posted may be "simplistic", and use terms you may not like, it has to be in order to carry a certain weight within these communities. It speaks to them in a language they understand and as an alternative to the horrendous group masquerading as left-wingers, that currently dominate political discourse on Youtube.

Incidentally Sargon of Akkad has joined UKIP (like was it ever gonna be any different).
 
butchersapron said:
'trans narrative' and those supportive of it being 'proto-facists'. Every cliche going.

It's OUTRAGE material and about 1 cm deep.
Click to expand...

Sure, her language is hyperbolic.

But I don't really understand the phenomenon of 'trans' (and that wording is probably horrible). If someone tells me they identify as a gender other than what I might perceive they are or were then it doesn't offend or upset me. But I can't honestly say I understand the mechanisms at work there. I'd like to, which is why I posted about idpol stuff above.


I certainly don't think trans people should be vilifed excluded or smeared as pedos or sex pests. That's obviously disgusting.
 
See, what that vid does is say that the issues aren't real. The proper position is that the issues are real but need to be approached in a different way than Identity politics. There is a huge gulf between these two perspectives and i really hope that we're starting from the latter one here. Anything else is opening the door to red-brown shit.
 
Toast Rider said:
Sure, her language is hyperbolic.

But I don't really understand the phenomenon of 'trans' (and that wording is probably horrible). If someone tells me they identify as a gender other than what I might perceive they are or were then it doesn't offend or upset me. But I can't honestly say I understand the mechanisms at work there. I'd like to, which is why I posted about idpol stuff above.


I certainly don't think trans people should be vilifed excluded or smeared as pedos or sex pests. That's obviously disgusting.
Click to expand...
It's not language - it's her actually saying there is a proto-fascist trans narrative. That's the use of political concepts to attack "OUTRAGE" political opponents. That's cynical targeted deliberate use of language, not language as neutral background.
 
butchersapron said:
See, what that vid does is say that the issues aren't real. The proper position is that the issues are real but need to be approached in a different way than Identity politics.
Click to expand...
I only watched the start, and didn't pick up on her saying the issues aren't real. So I'm glad some people have picked up on that. (You and belboid primarily). I agree that it's important that those ideas aren't allowed to creep in.
 
butchersapron said:
It's a very marketable brand.

Please watch this Brendan.
Click to expand...

You have some perfectly reasonable criticisms of the video (some of which I share, as well as having others of my own, albeit I have lower expectations of what depth of analysis can reasonably be expected of a YouTube video), but this 'fogey' stuff is unhelpful, in my opinion.
 
Athos said:
You have some perfectly reasonable criticisms of the video (some of which I share, as well as having others of my own, albeit I have lower expectations of what depth of analysis can reasonably be expected of a YouTube video), but this 'fogey' stuff is unhelpful, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, young old fogey is a recognised career path.
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
I know exactly who you are talking about. Youtube are FULL of these types of disingenuous twats, and they make a living out of victimising themselves whilst admonishing "SJWs". I find the term SJW interesting, I had always found it to be a bit of a thought terminating cliche (like most other political acronyms) in order to "other" a group, and also to act as a smear.

In this case the Term SJW was first used I believe in atheist Youtube circles, to mean "feminists" as well as those who advocated for social justice online, but did so in an "illogical" way.

It's all part of Pwnage culture innit?

Having said that, these acronyms do eventually get absorbed into the lexicon and start to take on it's own meaning, and also, eventually, the targets of the smear start referring to themselves as such, somewhat ironically I suppose, in a bid to normalise the position. And what we end up with is an us vs them thing, in that your either WITH us, or AGAINST us.

"SJWs" are indiviudalists, post moderninsts, and IDpolers, just by the very nature of that they are currently leading the "left" in the internet culture wars. So if you're not an SJW you must be the opposite? An alt-righter.

And you see this used quite often as tropes. The moment you see someone disagree with your "side" you are sullied and outcast and must be a fascist cus what's the alternative?

When I was more active on Youtube, I kinda thought Anita had some salient points, but a lot of her delivery was bullshit, and there was a lot of sneering and condescension, as well as stuff that was just, well, weak (there's a long thread on here about the spat between her and Tunderf00t) - but I couldn't really say it publicly on youtube because, as someone who had been labelled an SJW, I was expected to toe the line, word for word or be outcast from the group.

So while SJW is an alt-right term, I think there is a group in online circles certainly, who do fit the bill of mantra-repeating, ideologues, just like the alt-right quite frankly. I don't consider them to be left wing in the slightest (though many will identify as anarchists - though they've never read any in their lives).

I think what this forum, of relatively older, well read people forget is that a lot of youth get their politics from online sources, and it has to be accessible. So while the video I posted may be "simplistic", and use terms you may not like, it has to be in order to carry a certain weight within these communities. It speaks to them in a language they understand and as an alternative to the horrendous group masquerading as left-wingers, that currently dominate political discourse on Youtube.

Incidentally Sargon of Akkad has joined UKIP (like was it ever gonna be any different).
Click to expand...
It is indeed full of it. I see it everywhere, but that may have been the circles I was in - the G+ sceptic community with whom I briefly flirted. A horrible toxic place full of people who used the word 'bitch' constantly as well as 'sjw'.

It all seems to stem from Gamergate. At least that's my perception. SJW seems to refer not simply to feminists, they are the defacto target, but to anyone that cares about civil rights and treating people kindly because doing so, in their reactionary eyes, is to deny them the privilege they deserve, and to diminish society. And because giving trauma victims somewhere safe to be is to undermine the entirety of western civilisation.

I have watched a fair amount of Anita's vidoes. I don't get the impression she's condescending tbf. Her analysis, to my ears, seems pretty reasonable. If that tone is there then, given the shit she's had to put up with, I can forgive it. As far as a spat with thunderfoot? I wouldn't call it a spat, since that implies it went both ways. I would call it obsessive bullying; he turned his attention to her and made every single video about ho feminism (of which she was eexplicitly emblematic) was "poisoning everything". Creepy as fuck.

It's only gotten worse since then with these people. I find the notion that Sargon has almost a million followers and a comfortable living spouting evidence free horseshit utterly galling. I resent it, which isn't healthy. I wish YT had the balls to ban him, damn his free speech. Then there's Rubin who makes a fortune (and that, again, is nothing compared to Petersen) and is funded by the Koch brothers to soft soap racists and thugs. This shit is becoming a real problem.

And then there's dear old Stephen Yaxley Lennon, their new darling.

So of course these clowns join UKIP. They dont' care about policies or outcomes. They're minted. Youtube and patreon has seen to that. We seem to live at a time when you can set yourself up for life off the back of the faux outrage of pretending the holocaust is funny because...nazi dog. It's fucking insane.

Rant over :D
 
butchersapron said:
See, what that vid does is say that the issues aren't real. The proper position is that the issues are real but need to be approached in a different way than Identity politics. There is a huge gulf between these two perspectives and i really hope that we're starting from the latter one here. Anything else is opening the door to red-brown shit.
Click to expand...
I don't get that reference.
What is the correct way to approach these issues?
 
Toast Rider said:
It is indeed full of it. I see it everywhere, but that may have been the circles I was in - the G+ sceptic community with whom I briefly flirted. A horrible toxic place full of people who used the word 'bitch' constantly as well as 'sjw'.

It all seems to stem from Gamergate. At least that's my perception. SJW seems to refer not simply to feminists, they are the defacto target, but to anyone that cares about civil rights and treating people kindly because doing so, in their reactionary eyes, is to deny them the privilege they deserve, and to diminish society. And because giving trauma victims somewhere safe to be is to undermine the entirety of western civilisation.

I have watched a fair amount of Anita's vidoes. I don't get the impression she's condescending tbf. Her analysis, to my ears, seems pretty reasonable. If that tone is there then, given the shit she's had to put up with, I can forgive it. As far as a spat with thunderfoot? I wouldn't call it a spat, since that implies it went both ways. I would call it obsessive bullying; he turned his attention to her and made every single video about ho feminism (of which she was eexplicitly emblematic) was "poisoning everything". Creepy as fuck.

It's only gotten worse since then with these people. I find the notion that Sargon has almost a million followers and a comfortable living spouting evidence free horseshit utterly galling. I resent it, which isn't healthy. I wish YT had the balls to ban him, damn his free speech. Then there's Rubin who makes a fortune (and that, again, is nothing compared to Petersen) and is funded by the Koch brothers to soft soap racists and thugs. This shit is becoming a real problem.

And then there's dear old Stephen Yaxley Lennon, their new darling.

So of course these clowns join UKIP. They dont' care about policies or outcomes. They're minted. Youtube and patreon has seen to that. We seem to live at a time when you can set yourself up for life off the back of the faux outrage of pretending the holocaust is funny because...nazi dog. It's fucking insane.

Rant over :D
Click to expand...

All fair enough. I guess spat was a silly word to use. Thunderf00t is a massive bellend and his obsession was creepy as fuck. They all work on the latest outrage for patreon $$$$.

As for anita, yea some of her analysis was reasonable, but she is a liberal, so I took issue with some of her shit. no WAAY did it demand the response from the outrages "sceptics" followed. And I firmly believe you can have a dialogue with people without being obnoxious about it and calling it "criticism" (which really was just bullying).

You know, I'm kinda pleased you understand where I'm coming from though. I try and talk about it with my mates but they're all *WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?* and the fact that they are supposedly insignificant, although they have millinons of subscribers.

danny la rouge said:
I only watched the start, and didn't pick up on her saying the issues aren't real. So I'm glad some people have picked up on that. (You and belboid primarily). I agree that it's important that those ideas aren't allowed to creep in.
Click to expand...

I don't think she did say the issues aren't real. In fact she specifically mentioned intersectionality being the intersection between race-class sex-class- etc etc, but that it's bastardised and simplified into essentially being privileged points under id-pol (especially on the internet).

If she did say "it's not important", I also missed it. but I don't think she did.
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
but that it's bastardised and simplified into essentially being privileged points under id-pol (especially on the internet).
Click to expand...
With all the will in the world, I'm not going to watch the rest. But, yes, that's what I picked up on from the bit I saw. And I do agree with that bit.
 
Overlooking the dodgey normalisation and taking on of oversimplified, doublespeak, alt-right insults for one moment...:hmm:

Has anyone mentioned the glaring hypocrisy of bemoaning the politics of identity as reductive, flawed and anti-solidarity building whilst as the same time dismssing and pigeonholing/idenitifying others as 'SJWs' ?

She has a lot of good points to make yet undermines those by using this kind of broad brush language....'Do as I say not as I do...'
 
Rutita1 said:
Has anyone mentioned the glaring hypocrisy of bemoaning the politics of identity as reductive, flawed and anti-solidarity building whilst as the same time dismssing and pigeonholing/idenitifying others as 'SJWs' ?
Click to expand...

There is none. 'SJW' (whether you like the term or not) is a reference to the content (or lack of!) of someone's politics; it's not an identity. It's about what someone does/thinks, not their characteristics. Not everything that's identifiable is an identity in the sense of identity politics.
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
If she did say "it's not important", I also missed it. but I don't think she did.
Click to expand...

I just forced myself to watch the video.

She says the SJWs 'have no aims' and mentions how the left should be 'standing up for actual principals'.

I also did a giant facepalm when she was prepared to bring up Miranda Yardley but not anything that Miranda Yardley says, choosing instead to only focus on Miranda Yardleys identity :facepalm:
 
elbows said:
I just forced myself to watch the video.

She says the SJWs 'have no aims' and mentions how the left should be 'standing up for actual principals'.
Click to expand...

"having no aims" is different to the issues they talk about (race sex disability) "not being important". I kind of agree that id-polers really do have no aims, other than to label everyone under an identity, and assign privilege points on that basis.

It certainly doesn't liberate anyone from anything.

I still don't know what end game they expect to happen because in practical terms it does nothing except alienate the vast majority of the population (and push them into the arms of the right.. cuz if you're not with us, you must be against us).
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
I kind of agree that id-polers really do have no aims, other than to label everyone under an identity, and assign privilege points on that basis.
Click to expand...

I really doubt the appropriate response to that sort of thing is to join in with a bastardised version that involves labelling them under the identity of SJW.

If I had more time I would be really tempted to travel back through history, but seen through the modern prism of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by chucking terms like SJW around with abandon.

'Free Nelson Mandela!' no doubt met with 'I'm of the true left, dont tell me what to think you bloody SJW'. Or perhaps 'You'll not set the industrial estates on fire by focusing on some purely academic issue abroad, you'll just end up driving the workers to spend their spare pittance on posters of Margaret Thatcher'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

brixtonscot
Is Homosexual Identity Dependant on Homophobia ?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
162
Views
4K
8ball
8ball
Mation
The Lonely Theophilostory Post Thread
Replies
16
Views
811
T & P
T & P
ska invita
Secondary school syllabus on history/politics
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
MickiQ
MickiQ
ska invita
Politics around the big social media platforms
Replies
1
Views
356
ska invita
ska invita
Serene
Academics who need vetting before studying them, thread.
Replies
20
Views
1K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom