Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

heh

does ron post here or something what is this "heh" about

we must have transparency or else the illiberal protesters have won or something

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/07/08/legislator-threatens-u-wisconsin-budget-over-reading-gay-sex

the article the legislator is fussing about was assigned *this week*

hell of a short circuit between 'academic freedom' and the state

i wonder which student forwarded the reading list to his right-wing legislator (or dad or whatever)

seems to be this article http://web.archive.org/web/20111109150003/http:/www.fabmagazine.com/story/not-just-a-preference

"We Are The Left" statement about identity politics

https://medium.com/@We_Are_The_Left/an-open-letter-on-identity-politics-to-and-from-the-left-b927fe66d3a4#.nzjd7tpz3

idk, agree in some parts, disagree with some characterizations of certain events

man "we've" been arguing whether marxoid class analysis or some other kind of socially-determined formation is really the thing for a while now. can't believe someone hasn't square that circle yet!!

one response from carl beijer: sady doyle is full of shit

http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/07/twist-her-tits-off-origin-of-smear.html?m=1

manuel delanda has got you taken care of

https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-assemblage-theory.html

Clarifies and systematises the concepts and presuppositions behind the influential new field of assemblage theory

Manuel DeLanda provides the first detailed overview of the assemblage theory found in germ in Deleuze and Guattari’s writings. Through a series of case studies DeLanda shows how the concept can be applied to economic, linguistic and military history as well as to metaphysics, science and mathematics.

DeLanda then presents the real power of assemblage theory by advancing it beyond its original formulation – allowing for the integration of communities, institutional organisations, cities and urban regions. And he challenges Marxist orthodoxy with a Leftist politics of assemblages.

Key Features

Critically connects DeLanda with more recent theoretical turns in speculative realism
Makes sense of the fragmentary discussions of assemblage theory in the work of Deleuze and Guattari
Opens up assemblage theory to sociology, linguistics, military organisations and science so that future researchers can rigorously deploy the concept in their own fields

didn't read the beijer yet but damn is he an unlikable left-wing bro

Pretty much everyone involved in politics is unlikable.

xp. both the centrist identity politics people and the lefty dudes criticizing them are awful

so what was up with that selection of incidents in the opener? shulamith firestone in 1968, sylvia rivera in 1973, marissa johnson and mara willaford taking the stage at a sanders event last year. it seems calculated to associate legendary berniebroism with the worst possible constructions of situations from the standpoint of today's core left dogmas. but it's not written in the form of a mea culpa or a wea cupla, which for a some portion of the signatories i'm guessing it could have been, relative to their politics over time - it's not as if the left in general was warmly receiving and assimilating critiques from firestone's or rivera's positions at the time. they could have, for example, used a conflict like the one between audre lorde and mary daly as an example, which would have borne stronger implications for anyone currently identifying as a leftist. (how hard would it be to find a clinton supporter now who's said some questionable shit about BLM?) instead it's a youa culpa which seems to be directed mainly outward (by virtue of who is defined as being on the outside). white women come in for some flack in their mention of hugo schwyzer, but mostly the statement gives little impression of centering race, so that it's essentially a diatribe against bad men who claim leftist associations which seeks to link abusiveness with denials of identity politics. something about the framing seems phony in that respect. ostensibly it's claiming a much more inclusive 'we' under the guise of being anti-oppression, but its moves to establish bona fides for that inclusiveness seem opportunistic somehow.

the disingenous thing is firestone had actually very out there politics and the signers of the letter are basically centrist democrats. if someone tried to actually lobby to into the democrat's platform

just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility

and the breaking of the tyranny of the biological family through pervasive test tube babies.

i suspect that the letter signers would be less than enthused.

like maaaaybe if the letter said "first: we are the left because we want to expropriate the banks and burn the police stations to the ground and _also_ etc" then it wouldn't be a complete con job

i wish i never heard of politics

https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/753448855153303553

lmao

the letter: i think it is an understandable response to a situation where dickheads who claim the mantle of the "left" use doxxing tactics and shit because they feel threatened by women and minorities in positions of leadership. it seems to mostly be white men who use those kinds of tactics. i could be wrong, but that's what it seems like. anyway, what women and minorities describe experiencing on the internet from these corners is hate speech. not copasetic at all.

however, there is something "off" about the idea that "identity politics" has been marginalized by "class politics" nationally. the feminist movement, the lgbt movement, and the civil rights movement have transformed society over the past several decades. the journey is not even close to being finished, and their victories have come with reactionary backlashes so it's not like it's been a straight road, but like, it is much better to be gay in america now than it was in 1960. obama recently signed an executive order protecting trans rights, when forty years ago, as the article describes, trans activists were treated abominably even by the mainstream gay rights movement. this is progress. in many ways our country is a far more civilized place than it was just several decades ago and it is due to the persistent work of leftists on the "identity politics" side of the left. people fought hard, they met resistance, they kept fighting, and they won.

meanwhile, on the "class" side, wages have fallen precipitously during this same period. democrats and republicans alike have torn holes into the safety net. non-rich students can only go to college by taking on enormous financial burdens. many of the people who fought the "identity" battles were also fighting these developments -- they disproportionately affect minorities and women -- but they lost here. they were up against capitalism itself.

if you look at the past forty years of "the left" in terms of issues rather than groups, it seems the "identity" issues have fared better than the "class" issues -- at least they have garnered some institutional support.

tl;dr - the issue of racism and sexism being used as tools of intimidation and abuse by people who see identity politics as a threat to class politics is real and serious. however, i question the degree of power these people have, really. i also wonder how reflective racist and sexist "bernie bros" are of the general attitude of socialists. i say this as someone who didn't vote for bernie in part bc he didn't strongly condemn the sexism of the nevada protesters. (the other reason was bc i found his harping the "rigged system" of superdelegates to be dumb and counterproductive. didn't vote for hillary either fwiw -- stayed out of it.)

also, judging by the centrist commitments of the signers of this thing, i wonder to what degree they are just trying to smear socialists

idk, the examples they give of sexism and racism on the left are so horrifying it feels gross questioning anything in the article. also i don't know if i care anymore. i want economic security to become a human right but if the organizations that advocate for that have allowed themselves to become as rife with monsters as this article implies then oh well.

you have to look at what's at stake and who's being targeted in that article to make some sense of it, and to sort of question the various "examples" it tries to throw together. that's why the beijer piece is useful -- you have to dug on the different strands.

i mean, i guess the hellish reality we are moving toward is neoliberal "identity politics" vs. reactionary/populist "class politics", which is also a kind of identity politics insofar as it is based on white resentment

my class politics is based on poor resentment

Wow, that Beijer piece is a vile pile of crap. So now the harassed has an obligation to ask every harasser why they harass them? What an asshole.

Also, the posibility (or inevitability) that mentally ill people will join in on the harassment is part of the reason why you don't dogpile in the way these guys does. Fuck that abusive creep.

Wow, that Beijer piece is a vile pile of crap. So now the harassed has an obligation to ask every harasser why they harass them? What an asshole.

― Frederik B, Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:33 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no. but if you want to smear someone as being "egged on by the circle around X" and then that person is unrelated, then you shouldn't accuse X of anything.

shitty analogy -- lots of people hated reagan and his policies. John Hinckley tried to kill reagan. should people have said "everyone criticizing reagan is responsible for this" ? or "the possibility that mentally ill people will try to kill reagan is part of the reason you shouldn't use sharp rhetoric against reagan"?

this is war on terror bs logic repurposed into a "social justice" setting.

Pretty much everyone involved in politics is unlikable.

as I observe them, they often shine in terms of social skills but generally not in terms of intellect or character

misogynist abuse is endemic to all online spaces. resistance to even looking at the gendered hierarchies within the left has a long history. those are both general truths.

that said, this piece places some recent online fights in the context of much older fights within the left over identity and solidarity. bringing in the transwomen at stonewall to relitigate all of your gross twitter beefs of the last 12 months is... some kind of something

this whole thing is just a proxy for the end of hillary-bernie contest. i don't think it makes much sense outside of that. a whole raft of feminists threw in for hillary and took a lot of (often nasty) shit for their candidate's bad policy history. it's structured like a plea for unity and an end to exclusion but it moves from one highly-euphemistic piece of score-settling to another.

good analysis, goole

if you really want me to show my cards, i think this campaign has turned sady doyle into a paranoid idiot, sarah kendzior is only intermittently honest, matt breunig was fired for nothing, a whole lot of the more anarcho-minded online ppl have frankly turned full fash lately, and the whole 'woke for hillary' set turned up the rhetorical heat on sanders supporters -- as retrograde white commies -- as a mask for their candidate's surprising weaknesses in the face of a vermont gadfly long before the 'berniebro' phenomenon broke out.

it doesn't really help matters that the new wave right wing psychosphere hates intersectional feminism a little more than it hates leftism generally and is always eager to join in.

it's been a really backward year for mutual understanding. instead of a writer making a case for a reasonable stance and debating it, it's acerbic tweets responding to half-baked arguments followed by articles that are just round-ups of one side of the argument, further dirtying the image of whoever seems to have come down on the wrong side of the most marginal of stances

would it make you feel better or worse if i were to say that most of us completely stopped paying attention about a year or so ago, and have spent the intervening time painstakingly attempting to explain to our white friends that saying "black lives matter" doesn't make you racist, 57 times over?

yeah I checked out long ago

not sure whether I'm happy I haven't had to explain blm to any friends, maybe I just need more varied friends

thanks to this thread i kind of know what's going on ish

i can never remember people's names though

let's be honest tho the online left has been a mess since before hill/sanders cf jacobinghazi shit this /fight/ didn't just spring from zeus' head after iowa caucus

yes, that's something that the WATL piece is accurate about -- these are recent manifestations of fractures in the left that go back generations.

+ trís is right that neither side acquits themselves v well - this coming from a guy who was on some 'class is more important than identity' crap all over ilx a few years ago but seeing deboer + beijer types makes it clear how gross that look can get even when it is staying on the right side of soviet LARPing (which let's be honest it rarely is)

i didn't think anything could make me sympathetic to fdb but this nonsense actually sort of has.

no. but if you want to smear someone as being "egged on by the circle around X" and then that person is unrelated, then you shouldn't accuse X of anything.

But that's not what Sady Doyle is saying. In the parts Beijer quotes, she never claims that that threat came from someone related to Bruenig and Beijer, she just says that that kind of abuse is what comes when harassment is legitimised. This is what Beijer quotes: "‘twist her tits clear off’...people piling on like that is a foreseeable consequence of inciting harassment and framing my harassment as a moral good. Which is, well, what Bruenig and Beijer did."' No need for that harasser to be connected to them. Also, she is 100% correct. And Beijer then uses that against her, to further continue lying and thereby further legitimising more abuse of her. It's absolutely vile and disgusting.

again, make the analogy to reagan and think for a second.

I think Fred's ideas are bad

But I urge fans of mine to not imply they are going to twist his dick off, be civil, guys

the whole purity politics these dudes specialize in is about guilt by association so i'm not shedding any tears for them

i didn't want to exacerbate any interpersonal type stuff #onhere but yeah, Mordy, i thought you might like beijer! i think he's ok generally. ruder than i'd be, but that goes for most online people. one of the people i'll read when something pops up but don't follow directly

fdb i think belongs in a monastery

it is ~interesting~ how earlier controversies like jacobinghazi and gamergate map onto or prefigured these divisions, but at the point of saying so you have to realize how fatally up-its-own-ass the whole scene is. if there was a way to deemphasize twitter across the board...

again, make the analogy to reagan and think for a second.

― R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover), 14. juli 2016 21:38 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I thought for a second. The analogy is laughably bad. Are you going to admit that you misrepresented what Sady Doyle said?

not sure whether I'm happy I haven't had to explain blm to any friends, maybe I just need more varied friends

― mh

don't bother, it was like talking to a wall. i had to ditch them all.

honestly this thread isn't doing much to educate me. it's like reading spoilers for game of thrones. everybody's all like "WINTER HAS COME!!!" and my reaction is "uh... that's bad, i guess?"

honestly i commend you for not staring into your phone 16 hours a day as a form of political engagement

also there's a deliberate association by adjunction thing going on here. there's a _clear_ and pretty bogus implication of causality even if individual statements are factually correct.

let me try this. "one man bought a wu-tang album. he has been denounced as a hipster douche who deserves to rot in jail, and people have said they hope he dies."

"one woman became the prime minister of britain. many people did not mourn her death."

"one man failed the entrance exam of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. many have since said he is the worst monster in history and even speculated as to going back in time and killing him as a child."

the existence of an online alt-right which attacks people is entirely disappeared. so if any liberal centrist dem gets any sort of online attack at all -- even if its from ppl with like swastika tattoos all over their timeline -- then somehow this is the fault of people who criticize them _from the left_.

Are you going to admit that you misrepresented what Sady Doyle said?

― Frederik B, Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:42 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no. are you going to tell me why my analogy is bad

Nah. I'm not going to waste anymore time on you when you're dishonest and won't admit it. Waste of time.