Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I think there’s a lot in that. I appreciate what belboid is saying, and some of what she says isn’t nuanced and yeah, I get that it sounds like a badly edited teenager essay now it’s been pointed out.

But on the other hand it’s genuinely one of the first videos I’ve watched that tries to pull an argument together against this IDPol shit from a left perspective and not an alt-right one. So I don’t care if it’s wobbly or shonky at least it’s a start!

I recall that this - link - was the first thing I read to critique idpol from a class perspective. Just a couple of years ago. Before this I'd defend idpol because they were on my side (the left) and I felt I had to take that side against the alt-right. This article challenged me because it made arguments I'd usually associated with the alt-right (criticising idpol) but doing so from a socialist position.
 
If you want to see what the alt-right mean when they say SJW, check out one of those 'SJW cringe' compilations on youtube. That was one way they successfully spread a stereotype to the mainstream. The typical clip will be e.g. a middle-class uni student hectoring white people for cultural appropriation because they have dreadlocks.
 
they do, but it should still be resisted.

I did resist it. For years. Refused to acknowledge it and always pointed out it is a term created by the right to discredit anyone vaguely progressive. It made no difference, the word caught on and passed into common parlance (online at least). I still won't use it myself but I can get someone using the language their audience will understand.
 
They use those extreme-SJWs as a trojan horse too. Once it's established that these are crazy fuckers to be mocked and laughed at, they'll start applying the same principle towards more rational lefty views. I saw a video where the guy was mocking an 'SJW' youtuber who was talking about how race is socially constructed. Thing is, her video was just a solid overview of race from a sociological/anthropological perspective. Pretty on point, nothing crazy, calmly presented. But the alt-right guy is bracketing her alongside all of the genuinely mental clips. So they do use it to discredit progressive arguments more generally and the properly mental stuff is a gateway to discrediting sensible stuff.
 
I was going to buy that on Kindle this week. No good?
I can send you my copy if you like.

I dont think its very good though, no. Not the worst book in the world, by an means, a couple of god chapters, but a lot is just shallow, without any evidence of research having been done. The initial premise about transgression is wrong, she failed to understand anything about the left student protests she criticises (and actively misrepresents the anti-Milo campaign in Berkely), pretty much entirely skips any wider contexts, she even says the traditinal (religious) right is all but dead, despite the fact of one of them being in the bloody White House!

Chapter on manchasm, or whatever her phrase was, was good, and it qute possibly identitifes a small subsect of a left movement quite accurately, but it claims to do oh so much more. All in all, I found it superficial and unconvincing. Good for backing up preconceived ideas but nothing else.
 
I recall that this - link - was the first thing I read to critique idpol from a class perspective. Just a couple of years ago. Before this I'd defend idpol because they were on my side (the left) and I felt I had to take that side against the alt-right. This article challenged me because it made arguments I'd usually associated with the alt-right (criticising idpol) but doing so from a socialist position.

That is an excellent article!
 
I did resist it. For years. Refused to acknowledge it and always pointed out it is a term created by the right to discredit anyone vaguely progressive. It made no difference, the word caught on and passed into common parlance (online at least). I still won't use it myself but I can get someone using the language their audience will understand.
The word (which isnt a word) has not 'caught on' in this country. People may know what it means, but that is different to acually using it. It's use should not be encouraged.
They use those extreme-SJWs as a trojan horse too. Once it's established that these are crazy fuckers to be mocked and laughed at, they'll start applying the same principle towards more rational lefty views.
And that is exactly why you dont help the fuckers out by taking up their language!
 
That is an excellent article!

I thought so! It really did change the way I think. I feel like going along with idpol required subconsciously suppressing my beliefs on class and privilege and I remember this article snapping me back to reality, as it felt at the time.

I also recall this article doing quite well on twitter and even Sargon of Akkad retweeted it. The authors whole intention at the time was to appeal to young men who were being drawn to the alt-right but who could, under other circumstances, have been receptive to left-wing arguments. First time I'd seen the concept of trying to appeal to people rather than seeing them as an enemy.
 
I did resist it. For years. Refused to acknowledge it and always pointed out it is a term created by the right to discredit anyone vaguely progressive.

They use those extreme-SJWs as a trojan horse too. Once it's established that these are crazy fuckers to be mocked and laughed at, they'll start applying the same principle towards more rational lefty views.

Yes and YES. I'm not a fan of these acronyms either. I've been saying for a while that they are just thought terminating clichés but like you say, they enter the lexicon, and as I mentioned they start to take on meaning.

I still don't use the term SJW because I don't think it's an accurate descriptor and it is used as a trojan horse. I'd rather call them neo-liberal postmodernists, because its more accurate but at the same time that *is* really elitist language, and there isn't another term that can be used.

No one knows what the fuck a postmodern liberal is unless you've done some pretty heavy reading and have a lot of time on your hands.

I do think that IDpoler is starting to get into usage though, and I think that's a good thing.
 
The word (which isnt a word) has not 'caught on' in this country. People may know what it means, but that is different to acually using it. It's use should not be encouraged.

And that is exactly why you dont help the fuckers out by taking up their language!

As I said, I personally would not use that phrase. It hasn't hit the UK mainstream but people who spend time online will know it. Although I don't use it myself, I recognise people who do use it aren't necessarily from the alt-right
 
I can send you my copy if you like.

I dont think its very good though, no. Not the worst book in the world, by an means, a couple of god chapters, but a lot is just shallow, without any evidence of research having been done. The initial premise about transgression is wrong, she failed to understand anything about the left student protests she criticises (and actively misrepresents the anti-Milo campaign in Berkely), pretty much entirely skips any wider contexts, she even says the traditinal (religious) right is all but dead, despite the fact of one of them being in the bloody White House!

Chapter on manchasm, or whatever her phrase was, was good, and it qute possibly identitifes a small subsect of a left movement quite accurately, but it claims to do oh so much more. All in all, I found it superficial and unconvincing. Good for backing up preconceived ideas but nothing else.

Thanks Belboid for the offer but its only £6 on Amazon for Kindle and saves the faff amd cost of sending a book to Portugal.I'm interested in it mainly to try and understand a little more on how the UK alt right and more recently the alt light work. I was arguing with some American kid on Twitter the other week about why he was retweeting a photo of Gen-Id, and when I went on his page it had all the alt right memes and retweets and then I noticed that his location was Manchester so I assumed that was Manchester USA but after skimming everything he'd written it was Manchester UK. His entire social media world and persona was American, language , news feeds, films , games the lot. It was like arguing with someone from a different country possibly world.
 
I though the Nagle book was piss poor and was pretty embarrassing when it tried to discuss Evola/the german conservative revolution/anti-fascism from the right. And her and her publishers defences when it was revealed large chunks of it were copied from Wikipedia and other places firmly cemented the idea that this was a non-serious rush job. The best book on the alt-right/modern far right of the crop published over the last few years is Insurgent Supremacists: The U.S. Far Right's Challenge to State and Empire by Matthew N Lyons. Refreshing to find a book that actually deals with the issue and looks at what the modern far right actually is/does rather than parrot shop-worn myths.

(I may do a 'reading the right' thread soon btw as i've been wallowing in their filth fro a few years now - i think it's important to).
 
Last edited:
I recall that this - link - was the first thing I read to critique idpol from a class perspective. Just a couple of years ago. Before this I'd defend idpol because they were on my side (the left) and I felt I had to take that side against the alt-right. This article challenged me because it made arguments I'd usually associated with the alt-right (criticising idpol) but doing so from a socialist position.
I hadn't seen that before, but I like Loki. I may not always agree with him, but he's always well worth reading. He always articulates issues well. And in this piece he very clearly illustrates the hypocrisies and dilemmas of IDpol. And he doesn't shy from pointing out that while it came from a good place, it has led to unintended consequences. It is left to what he calls 'libertarian' bloggers and vloggers to criticise "Islamic extremists, sections of the left tend to sympathise with, who pose more of a threat to the feminist plight than media savvy opportunists like Roosh V." because the 'left' doesn't want to seem Islamophobic.

Some of us have been saying similar for years.
 
I hadn't seen that before, but I like Loki. I may not always agree with him, but he's always well worth reading. He always articulates issues well. And in this piece he very clearly illustrates the hypocrisies and dilemmas of IDpol. And he doesn't shy from pointing out that while it came from a good place, it has led to unintended consequences. It is left to what he calls 'libertarian' bloggers and vloggers to criticise "Islamic extremists, sections of the left tend to sympathise with, who pose more of a threat to the feminist plight than media savvy opportunists like Roosh V." because the 'left' doesn't want to seem Islamophobic.

Some of us have been saying similar for years.

Agreed, it's good to see him getting some mainstream exposure recently. At the time, in amongst all the culture wars, nobody was speaking about class - was very refreshing at the time to read this.
 
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.



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.
I don't get to talk about these issues offline which is unfortunate because it's the online discourse that's polluted by these people. I think a lot of people (Tommy Robinson fans for example) have been influenced by these youtube folk 'heroes'. the EDL have cited sargon as an ally. Now they are members of UKIP. Milo is just a fascist troll and a supporter of child abuse. Jordan Petersen is a fucking puritan lunatic. Rubin is a simpleton shill. All of them, and the others I haven't mentioned, just trot out the same crap and never listen.

I'd guess they'd call that being 'triggered'
 
I hadn't seen that before, but I like Loki. I may not always agree with him, but he's always well worth reading. He always articulates issues well. And in this piece he very clearly illustrates the hypocrisies and dilemmas of IDpol. And he doesn't shy from pointing out that while it came from a good place, it has led to unintended consequences. It is left to what he calls 'libertarian' bloggers and vloggers to criticise "Islamic extremists, sections of the left tend to sympathise with, who pose more of a threat to the feminist plight than media savvy opportunists like Roosh V." because the 'left' doesn't want to seem Islamophobic.

Some of us have been saying similar for years.

I agree it's a good article. But next step is crucial, to actually engage with the arguments. Even if they seem simple or self evident. The shouting down or blanket dismissal is a terrible strategy.
 
I though the Nagle book was piss poor and was pretty embarrassing when it tried to discuss Evola/the german conservative revolution/anti-fascism from the right. And her and her publishers defences when it was revealed large chunks of it were copied from Wikipedia and other places firmly cemented the idea that this was a non-serious rush job. The best book on the alt-right/modern far right of the crop published over the last few years is Insurgent Supremacists: The U.S. Far Right's Challenge to State and Empire by Matthew N Lyons. Refreshing to find a book that actually deals with the issue and looks at what the modern far right actually is/does rather than parrot shop-worn myths.

(I may do a 'reading the right' thread soon btw as i've been wallowing in their filth fro a few years now - i think it's important to).
I'd be interested in a thread like that. Cant find much about alt-light economics , I think thats a weak point of theirs and something worth doing some more research into.
 
I'd be interested in a thread like that. Cant find much about alt-light economics , I think thats a weak point of theirs and something worth doing some more research into.
Maybe we could do and U75 politics reading group on this. I know we've tried such things before and they've kind of fallen apart but maybe with something more "readable" people will find it easier to work into their lives?
 
Maybe we could do and U75 politics reading group on this. I know we've tried such things before and they've kind of fallen apart but maybe with something more "readable" people will find it easier to work into their lives?

I'd be well up for that.
 
What shouting down or blanket dismissal?

The one alluded to in the article. Blanket is probably the wrong word. Shouting down probably too. But the article is calling for an engagement with the arguments of these new online libertarians or whatever they're called, rather than dismissal. I'd like to see more of that.
 
The one alluded to in the article. Blanket is probably the wrong word. Shouting down probably too. But the article is calling for an engagement with the arguments of these new online libertarians or whatever they're called, rather than dismissal. I'd like to see more of that.
I think we'd need to be clear that any engagement is to provide an alternative critique, an alternative value set, rather than for the purpose of convincing the 'libertarian' vloggers.
 
Thanks Belboid for the offer but its only £6 on Amazon for Kindle and saves the faff amd cost of sending a book to Portugal.
Dont worry, I meant a freely sourced ebook, I wouldnt want to pay for such lightweight stuff :) Easy to email if you like
 
Thanks for the article Sunset Tree. Is it the same guy Loki who is a rapper? I think I’m about to read a book of his called Poverty Safari.

I liked how in the article he also made suggestions about how to engage with it. Basically asking whether it’s possible or necessary to make what some lefties may consider concessions in what he describes as the rigid dogma of the left. Like holding back on criticising religion as it may cause more harm than good, or making a positive case for it. Or accepting that trigger warnings are complete evidence free bullshit (can’t agree enough about that one, what adult needs a trigger warning- jesus christ). Or that immigration or a no borders opinion isn’t going to go down well with a big section of the local working class.

I think that’s worth thinking about. Whether people can or will be prepared to make those concessions to actually engage and get people on board. Otherwise like he says, a lot of people, especially angry young men, will look elsewhere to find where they fit in and that elsewhere could well be the alt-right.
 
Edie yes that article is the rapper Loki who wrote poverty safari.

I remember finding his point on immigration illuminating - that, yes, it may have a net benefit to the economy. But that benefit is not felt in working class communities where the strain of immigration is felt. The benefit is to businesses who have a greater pool of labour which keeps wages down etc. For the liberal-left an argument like that will have you marked as a xenophobe, so I realised left-liberalism is so tied in with economic privilege. You can see the world that way if you're comfortably middle-class.

So much of idpol comes from that position of privilege and you end up with upper middle-class uni students writing off working-class people as stupid, ignorant, racist etc because they just can't understand working class perspectives and frustrations.
 
Back
Top Bottom