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

[Colin Hunt]

He is saying that anti-Semites are able to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited because of the fact that the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and was almost wholly comprised of Jews. That's literally almost a word for word quote, just slightly moved around and with the tenses sorted out a bit. You can argue whether or not it's accurate to call the Frankfurt School a cabal, or whether "wanting to end Western Civilization" is the same thing as "conspiring against society", but really you're grasping at straws there.

Cheers for your help. Ultimately I tend to believe that if you're arguing over semantic differences between 'school' and 'cabal' and 'conspiring against' versus 'wanting to end', then you're not really arguing in good faith.

 

[Diamond]

I'm just off to watch the footy.

You still haven't provided a single example of an author being misquoted or wrongly cited, despite making much hay out of such claims.

Can you support them Colin Hunt ?

 

[bimble]

hitmouse just feel like saying I’m glad you joined this website, if it’s the only positive consequence of the whole Labour antisemitism thing that’s still a plus.

 

[Diamond]

He is saying that anti-Semites are able to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited because of the fact that the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and was almost wholly comprised of Jews. That's literally almost a word for word quote, just slightly moved around and with the tenses sorted out a bit. You can argue whether or not it's accurate to call the Frankfurt School a cabal, or whether "wanting to end Western Civilization" is the same thing as "conspiring against society", but really you're grasping at straws there.

Your logic is appalling.

He is not saying but for the Frankfurt School we would have less anti-semitism.

Your argument depends on it and is frankly absurd.

 

[hitmouse]

Your logic is appalling.

He is not saying but for the Frankfurt School we would have less anti-semitism.

Your argument depends on it and is frankly absurd.

What do you think "This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited" means? What would you say is a fair and accurate summary of that statement?

 

[Diamond]

What do you think "This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited" means? What would you say is a fair and accurate summary of that statement?

Talk to me about causation and the verb "allow"

 

[JimW]

I'm just off to watch the footy.

You still haven't provided a single example of an author being misquoted or wrongly cited, despite making much hay out of such claims.

Can you support them Colin Hunt ?

This sort of sixth form debating style is probably why you get suckered by shit books.

 

[hitmouse]

Talk to me about causation and the verb "allow"

This thread has caused me to doubt your reading comprehension, and I'm going to allow people who've read up to this point to make up their own minds.

 

[Diamond]

Touché

 

[Athos]

He is not saying but for the Frankfurt School we would have less anti-semitism.

Given the words he used and the mileu in which he moves, it strikes me that this is exactly (part of*) the message he's trying to convey (even if he's left enough semantic wiggle room for plausible deniability).

*He goes further, in fact, using the Frankfurt School as a proxy for a classic antisemitic trope.

You're either being incredibly naive here, or arguing in bad faith.

 

[Colin Hunt]

I'm just off to watch the footy.

You still haven't provided a single example of an author being misquoted or wrongly cited, despite making much hay out of such claims.

Can you support them Colin Hunt ?

I've linked twice to a podcast which is roughly an hour long and goes through the misquoting and misciting in just chapter 8 of the book. I've also noted two instances where they've got Foucault's thought completely backwards and made it a key part of the book.

Nevertheless, I'll bite. Here's a quote from the authors on page 192: "Dotson famously called the dominance of reason and science a 'culture of justification' in 2012 and argued instead for a 'culture of praxis,' which would incorporate multiple ways of knowing in order to include more diverse groups of people in philosophy."

Dotson never called the dominance of reason and science a culture of justification. In fact, she calls “processes aimed at establishing the soundness of some belief, process, and/or practice,” (in other words, the exercise of reason) to be 'validation' and not 'justification'.

What Dotson calls a 'culture of justification' “privileges legitimation according to presumed, commonly held, univocally relevant justifying norms”. In other words, denying the exercise of reason the label of philosophy because of who is exercising the reason. So, a culture where philosophers in the Chinese and African traditions (regardless of race) have to constantly justify that their field is philosophy, while philosophers in the European tradition (again, regardless of race) do not have to do so. Her point was that if you are exercising reason and science to reach conclusions, you should not have to justify calling yourself a philosopher, not that reason is bad and needs to be dispensed with in favour of lived experience. Source.

Talk to me about causation and the verb "allow"

In Lindsay's view, but for the existence of the Frankfurt school, anti-semites wouldn't have been able to recruit as many new anti-semites. There's your causation, because had the Frankfurt school not existed, less anti-semites would've been recruited.

Again though we're deep in the weeds if you're splitting hairs about the definition of the word allow and its application in this instance.

Enjoy the football.

 

[bimble]

Talk to me about causation and the verb "allow"

This sentence, it’s a pretty risible attempt at an argument but might work on a dating profile.

 

[hitmouse]

This sentence, it’s a pretty risible attempt at an argument but might work on a dating profile.

I'm now trying to imagine it as a Smiths lyric:

We can go for a walk where it's quiet and dry
And talk about precious things
Like causation and the word "allow"

 

[killer b]

That sentence on a dating profile would be a real red flag for some tool of a pick-up artist though.

 

[Diamond]

I've linked twice to a podcast which is roughly an hour long and goes through the misquoting and misciting in just chapter 8 of the book. I've also noted two instances where they've got Foucault's thought completely backwards and made it a key part of the book.

Nevertheless, I'll bite. Here's a quote from the authors on page 192: "Dotson famously called the dominance of reason and science a 'culture of justification' in 2012 and argued instead for a 'culture of praxis,' which would incorporate multiple ways of knowing in order to include more diverse groups of people in philosophy."

Dotson never called the dominance of reason and science a culture of justification. In fact, she calls “processes aimed at establishing the soundness of some belief, process, and/or practice,” (in other words, the exercise of reason) to be 'validation' and not 'justification'.

What Dotson calls a 'culture of justification' “privileges legitimation according to presumed, commonly held, univocally relevant justifying norms”. In other words, denying the exercise of reason the label of philosophy because of who is exercising the reason. So, a culture where philosophers in the Chinese and African traditions (regardless of race) have to constantly justify that their field is philosophy, while philosophers in the European tradition (again, regardless of race) do not have to do so. Her point was that if you are exercising reason and science to reach conclusions, you should not have to justify calling yourself a philosopher, not that reason is bad and needs to be dispensed with in favour of lived experience. Source.

In Lindsay's view, but for the existence of the Frankfurt school, anti-semites wouldn't have been able to recruit as many new anti-semites. There's your causation, because had the Frankfurt school not existed, less anti-semites would've been recruited.

Again though we're deep in the weeds if you're splitting hairs about the definition of the word allow and its application in this instance.

Enjoy the football.

Yes, you have mentioned this podcast on a number of occasions as some kind of evidence in support. Can you not just summarise the points?

But thank you for taking the time to provide a specific example of misquotation/miscitation. Unfortunately I have lent my copy of the book to a friend but I think they are almost done with it so I'll pick it up at some point the next few days and come back to you.

On the Dotson point, I am slightly wary at taking at you at face value here as (i) the evidence you cite doesn't look like a misquotation, (ii) nor does it look like a miscitation, and (iii) you have already misrepresented material on this thread to date. My suspicion is that this is an interpretation and/or a critical argument that you are not a fan of. However, were that to be the case, that is not evidence in support of misquotation or miscitation, which are issues of dishonesty.

Yes, you have the right logical formulation of Lindsay's view there. See how it demonstrates no causation from the Frankfurt School to the antisemites...? The anti-semites use the material in the world available to them. The Frankfurt School is some of that material.

 

[Diamond]

Given the words he used and the mileu in which he moves, it strikes me that this is exactly (part of*) the message he's trying to convey (even if he's left enough semantic wiggle room for plausible deniability).

*He goes further, in fact, using the Frankfurt School as a proxy for a classic antisemitic trope.

You're either being incredibly naive here, or arguing in bad faith.

What about her?

 

[Athos]

What about her?

Quite. What abut her?

 

[Diamond]

You seem to know so much about this milieu Athos, paint me a picture for how it all fits together...?

 

[Athos]

You seem to know so much about this milieu Athos, paint me a picture for how it all fits together...?

Never mind putting it all together, Colin Hunt hunt has aready taken your argument apart! Including on this very point; see his comments on steps 3 and 4.

 

[Colin Hunt]

This is a bit tedious to be honest. There are whole posts of mine that you haven't responded to yet you insist on assuming that I'm acting in bad faith.

Yes, you have mentioned this podcast on a number of occasions as some kind of evidence in support. Can you not just summarise the points?

I can't summarise an hour-long piece of audio into 'points'. But if you want to read a piece by one of the podcast participants talking about chapter 8 of the book, you can find it here. It deals with many of the issues raised in the podcast. It also contains the source material for the Dotson quote below.

But thank you for taking the time to provide a specific example of misquotation/miscitation. Unfortunately I have lent my copy of the book to a friend but I think they are almost done with it so I'll pick it up at some point the next few days and come back to you.

On the Dotson point, I am slightly wary at taking at you at face value here as (i) the evidence you cite doesn't look like a misquotation, (ii) nor does it look like a miscitation, and (iii) you have already misrepresented material on this thread to date. My suspicion is that this is an interpretation and/or a critical argument that you are not a fan of. However, were that to be the case, that is not evidence in support of misquotation or miscitation, which are issues of dishonesty.

What is a misquotation if not someone being quoted as saying something which they did not say? In fact, Dotson explicitly states that she is supportive of the exercise of reason. You could read the linked source material if you want to, and compare it to the quote from the book. I'm not hiding anything here, nor am I misrepresenting anything. The author's quote Dotson as being hostile to reason to support their claim that reified postmodernists are hostile to science. That is intellectually dishonest because she never said any such thing in the work that they cite.

As a final point, what exactly have I misrepresented on this thread?

Yes, you have the right logical formulation of Lindsay's view there. See how it demonstrates no causation from the Frankfurt School to the antisemites...? The anti-semites use the material in the world available to them. The Frankfurt School is some of that material.

Yes, according to Lindsay the Frankfurt school's existence in the world provides material for anti-semites to recruit more anti-semites.

I'm glad we're finally in agreement that his tweets were propagating the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, although the road here was very tedious.

 

[hitmouse]

Yes, you have the right logical formulation of Lindsay's view there. See how it demonstrates no causation from the Frankfurt School to the antisemites...? The anti-semites use the material in the world available to them. The Frankfurt School is some of that material.

Is the Frankfurt School's desire to end Western Civilization some of that material, or is this a place where it might be helpful to challenge the worldview of antisemitic conspiracy theorists rather than accepting it as broadly accurate?

 

[killer b]

there's a worthwhile piece on postmodernism in the Statesman today - How postmodernism became the universal scapegoat of the era

 

[Jeff Robinson]

OK there's a few things to unpack here. Firstly, if someone's criticising a book that you've recommended for making incorrect generalisations, saying 'it seems OK to me' isn't a brilliant defense. With that in mind I'll go through my first post and add some substance.

Step 1: Make some generalisations and misrepresentations about a diverse group of theorists. Here's a quote about postmodernism from the book.

“[A] new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind.” Which of course ignores the fact that postmodernism is not hostile to reason, and that most postmodernist thinkers spent a lot of time disagreeing with each other, and responding to criticism of their work by non-postmodern thinkers.

Then there's the fact that they boil the entirety of Foucault's thought down into 2 points: radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge is possible and a belief that structures in society decide what is true. That's not what Foucault says. Firstly, he wasn't interested in finding out what was true, but rather in what we think is true causes us to act like, so they've got it backwards. And secondly Foucault wrote about power being relational and not zero-sum. So again they've got him backwards (perhaps deliberately in an attempt to link him to contemporary scholars).

So they've inappropriately lumped together a bunch of distinct theorists with different views and the main intellectual thrust of the book is based on a misreading of Foucault. I wouldn't call either of those things "perfectly reasonable" but you've already mentioned how the book spoke to your lived experience so perhaps you looked at these missteps with a less critical eye than I did.

Step 2: Make a tortured link from those generalisations to contemporary social justice movements. The book traces postmodernism through an 'applied postmodernism' phase and then into contemporary 'reified postmodernism'. The problem is that most of the contemporary thinkers are not postmodernists at all. In fact, some of them sit within the liberal tradition that the authors claim to be defending. Then there's the fact that quite a lot of the theorists that they claim to be quoting are actually misquoted, quoted out of context, or quoted to mean a completely different thing to what they're actually saying. So the authors are making up quotes and attributing them to people that never said them, in order to justify the link between (their misreading of) Foucault and (their caricature of) modern theorists.

As an aside, I'm not sure that there's much of a link between activists and social theorists. Postmodernism is primarily a tool of literary analysis, not a way of mobilising people onto the streets in protest movements.

Step 3: Become a darling of the right-wing media. This is just a description of what happened to Lindsay after the book was published. While theorists either vehemently disagreed with it, ignored it, or mocked it, right-wing media outlets gave it gushing coverage.

OK, now let's talk about me "spiralling off into an ad hominem attack of little substance".

Step 4: Partner with a Christian nationalist to set up a fake liberal website and spend most of your time laundering right-wing talking points (A cabal of Jews was trying to bring down Western civilisation from the inside and that's why the far-right can recruit more anti-semites; queer theory is in bed with radical Islamism; climate justice is communism; etc). Is it an ad hominem attack to point out who is funding someone's research? Because New Discourses, the website that Lindsay writes for, is funded by Michael O'Fallon, who also runs a website called Sovereign Nations which aims (I'm not going to link to it) to be "a prolegomenon to the formation of a new, and not just sentimental, conservative and Constitutional Republic" and is heavily involved in right-wing religious nationalism. O'Fallon and Lindsay have also shared numerous other platforms where they promote absurd theories together. So, to reiterate, is it ad hominem for me to point out that this team of so-called liberal rationalists are either partnered with or employed by (possibly both) the religious right? Is it ad hominem to say that they're laundering right-wing talking points when that is what they're actually doing? Or is it an honest description of their activities?

So what about the substance? Well on a previous page of this thread somebody linked to some of Lindsay's tweets, where he says that woke Jews cause anti-semitism (link) and that "the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and is almost wholly comprised of Jews. This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited" (link). So victim-blaming and some classic cultural Marxism conspiracy stuff. In other words, laundering far-right nonsense.

In the same twitter thread he states that "another Critical Theory, Queer Theory, partners with radical Islamists (not famous for their tolerance of gays) against Israel" (link). And I'm not going to link to it but if you search for 'Michael O'Fallon James Lindsay climate' it'll bring up a youtube video where they make the link between climate justice and communism.

That book isn't really serious scholarship, but then it's not supposed to be. There's two arms to this point. The first is that this book isn't serious scholarship. It's not. Between the massive simplification of decades of theory written by people with many differing viewpoints, the misreading of Foucault, and the misquoting of modern scholars, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the scholarship isn't serious. There are also technical issues with the scholarship, including incorrectly citing works, which don't fill me with confidence about the depth of their critical engagement with the material.

As for the what the work actually is, if it's not serious scholarship, that's a bit more of a reach. However, to me there are two reasons for supposing that this is a work of culture war positioning rather than serious scholarship. The first reason is Lindsay's connections to reactionary right-wing figures such as Michael O'Fallon and Christopher Rufo.

The second reason is that the very accusations that the authors level (wrongly) at reified postmodernism can be leveled at their work. For example, they claim that postmodernism is “[A] new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind” while only 1 of the theorists that they cite even comes close to making that claim. According to their view, reified postmodernists accept no disagreement, because your disagreement with them is representative of your power and your power means that your disagreement is invalid. I think Robin DiAngelo would probably agree with that statement, but none of the other cited theorists would.

But what happens if you disagree with Lindsay et al.? Then you become part of the evil woke that's trying to silence them. Which appears to me to be exactly the argument that they reject when it comes from reified postmodernists. As such, to me the book reads more as a sketch of right-wing victimhood and projection and a new frontier in the culture wars than a serious piece of scholarship.


I'm always suspicious of so-called 'genuine questions' but the source for that statement is here. "[T]he Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and is almost wholly comprised of Jews. This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited". It's been briefly discussed on a previous page of this thread too.

The People's Iron Fist Award for Excellent Posting goes to Colin Hunt!

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You seem to know so much about this milieu Athos, paint me a picture for how it all fits together...?

Defending the racist and conspiracy theorist Lindsay is a really bad hill to die on dude. He's so bad that even the co-author of the book you're recommending has ditched him because he's such a toxic nutter.

 

[dilberto]

It is a prejudiced position to presume that something can never happen.

Sorry to repeat myself.

Progressive change, by causing the social environment of progressive societies to diverge from their traditional native surviving character, has created a social environment which is no longer compatible with a surviving human population which is manifest in the demographic, cultural and class trends of progressive societies and in adapting to that social environment the values of such societies have become intolerant of their own traditional surviving native character and that intolerance is reflected in the historically extreme identity politics of progressive societies.

The best adapted to that social environment and in whom that intolerance is more strongly imbued will increasingly come to dominate the institutions of progressive societies with those who are the object of that intolerance excluded from those institutions reflecting its anti-native institutional bias, this is the cause of the current division of western society and its divisive identity politics which has led western native people to see themselves as being betrayed by the institutions and leaders of their own homeland.

 

[NoXion]

It is a prejudiced position to presume that something can never happen.

Sorry to repeat myself.

Progressive change, by causing the social environment of progressive societies to diverge from their traditional native surviving character, has created a social environment which is no longer compatible with a surviving human population which is manifest in the demographic, cultural and class trends of progressive societies and in adapting to that social environment the values of such societies have become intolerant of their own traditional surviving native character and that intolerance is reflected in the historically extreme identity politics of progressive societies.

The best adapted to that social environment and in whom that intolerance is more strongly imbued will increasingly come to dominate the institutions of progressive societies with those who are the object of that intolerance excluded from those institutions reflecting its anti-native institutional bias, this is the cause of the current division of western society and its divisive identity politics which has led western native people to see themselves as being betrayed by the institutions and leaders of their own homeland.

This just sounds like a far more wordy version of "they let the blacks and queers in, and now the Muslims will take over".

 

[Brainaddict]

It is a prejudiced position to presume that something can never happen.

Sorry to repeat myself.

Progressive change, by causing the social environment of progressive societies to diverge from their traditional native surviving character, has created a social environment which is no longer compatible with a surviving human population which is manifest in the demographic, cultural and class trends of progressive societies and in adapting to that social environment the values of such societies have become intolerant of their own traditional surviving native character and that intolerance is reflected in the historically extreme identity politics of progressive societies.

The best adapted to that social environment and in whom that intolerance is more strongly imbued will increasingly come to dominate the institutions of progressive societies with those who are the object of that intolerance excluded from those institutions reflecting its anti-native institutional bias, this is the cause of the current division of western society and its divisive identity politics which has led western native people to see themselves as being betrayed by the institutions and leaders of their own homeland.

You're using a very particular language here, I'm curious to know where it has come from. What reading have you been doing that has influenced this?

 

[JimW]

It also farcically posits an ur native identity, flying in the face of a history of constant flux, Britain more than most with reformation, industry and empire.

 

[mojo pixy]

It is a prejudiced position to presume that something can never happen.

Sorry to repeat myself.

Progressive change, by causing the social environment of progressive societies to diverge from their traditional native surviving character, has created a social environment which is no longer compatible with a surviving human population which is manifest in the demographic, cultural and class trends of progressive societies and in adapting to that social environment the values of such societies have become intolerant of their own traditional surviving native character and that intolerance is reflected in the historically extreme identity politics of progressive societies.

I think you need to give a few examples of this rather universal claim, because it looks a bit hand wavy to me.

The best adapted to that social environment and in whom that intolerance is more strongly imbued will increasingly come to dominate the institutions of progressive societies with those who are the object of that intolerance excluded from those institutions reflecting its anti-native institutional bias, this is the cause of the current division of western society and its divisive identity politics which has led western native people to see themselves as being betrayed by the institutions and leaders of their own homeland.

Anti-native institutional bias .. are you talking about Protestants oppressing Catholics? Normans oppressing Anglo-Saxons? But Catholicism (in fact Christianity at all) and Anglo-Saxon culture were immigrant cultures. Maybe you mean Anglo-Saxons and Vikings and Irish oppressing Romano-British? Or Romans oppressing Britons? But none of these were 'native' to the British Isles, they all arrived from somewhere else. I'm not sure who the 'natives" are, in the Britain in your mind. You mean Europe, are you talking about Mongol invasions, or maybe the Moorish ownership of most of Iberia, or..

I just don't understand what anti-native bias you mean. Or what natives you mean.

But I'd most like to read your answer to Brainaddict above.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Whilst you are musing on the posts immediately above dilberto it would also help if you could specify (or paste it from the book you've been reading) exactly what you'd recommend progressive societies do to address the fact that "western native people" see themselves as being betrayed by the institutions and leaders of their own homeland? It would also help further if you could sharpen up your definition of who the native people are and who they are not in your (the books) opinion.