Critics of identity politics

[Maring No.5880284]

Looking for some proper reading material from those critical of the LGBT community. In case anyone is going to get mad and accuse me of anything, I'm not anti gay or trans or any of that stuff. I just want to hear some proper criticism.

[Anonymous No.5880288]

Nothing to criticize, because identity politics are perfect, and if you disagree you are literally a shitlord

[Anonymous No.5880294]

>>5880288
Heil Hitler.

[Maring No.5880299]

>>5880288
Are you being sarcastic? Is that a joke?

[Anonymous No.5880304]

>>5880299
stop triggering me

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5880313]

friends, romans, countrymen, should we tolerate anti-gays on our board?

[Maring No.5880321]

>>5880304
Ah, ok. I was worried for a moment there. Thought people were going to get all hostile on me.


>>5880313
I'm not anti-gay. II don't know how I can make you trust me. I'm just curious. Of course the vast majority of anti-gay people are bigots, but I'm sure there are SOME rational people who have published their arguments. There's a whole other side to which I've never been exposed.

[Anonymous No.5880326]

>>5880284
I'm not sure what you're going to find that SPECIFICALLY goes against identity politics, since it's a relatively new thing and, as far as I know, lives only in the dissertations of newly-minted Gender Studies professors and Tumblr blogs. It's, of course, using Critical Theory as a lens to view society on an identity level, but I'm not sure any encompassing work has been created as a foundation for identity politics (nor do I believe such a thing could actually exist, since identity politics are inherently schismatic).

As such, the only things you'll find against identity politics are the ravings of literal racists and sexists, most probably. Otherwise, one needs only look into pre-Critical Theory works that either valued society on a non-differential level or valued individual Selves as of the most importance. From Descartes to Hume to Kant to Nietzsche to Aquinas to Plato, you'll find lots of philosophers who'd inherently disagree with identity politics. Marx probably as well, since he was strictly class based, and would probably flip his shit at the lengths modernity has gone to emphasize Gendered or Racial privilege.

Identity politics are purposefully incoherent, it seems to me, in order to allow views such as "gender is a social construct" and "transgenderism is a medical condition" to coexist. Or "race is a social construct" and "white privilege". There are no real metaethics.

I'd personally argue it's contemporary sophistry, and in that area it's doing a mighty fine job.

[Anonymous No.5880327]

I've personally never encountered "proper criticism", nothing with any real foundation, or a real concern. They don't refute any statesment with insight, they just reinforce their views by how it was before, with only a matter of sophisticated layers to hide those simple prejudices. Some science to justify normality through naturality, some religion to spice it up with moralism, ignoring facts and people, getting offended by the existence of LGBT.

>b-but men and women make babies!
This is the shit that is at the root of all arguments

[Anonymous No.5880331]

Do you want criticism of identity politics or criticism of the LGBT community?

[Anonymous No.5880341]

>>5880327
Being LGBT is not identity politics. Existence is not political.

However, the LGBT community is extremely toxic to itself. Lots of infighting over how pride parades are either neo-minstrelism welcomed with open arms by idiots, or a true expression of the diverse inner selves of LGBT individuals. "Straight acting" as a concept and such.

I mean, obviously, if anything is a social construct, it's the idea that LGBT culture exists, and especially that that culture is one of parades and gaudiness. However, identity politics is there to ensure LGBT individuals that they are indeed just like everyone else, and that they should realize that no one will ever understand them and that they should embrace their inherent alieness from the rest of society, with whom they fit perfectly since they are no different.

Gender is a social construct, as are concepts of femininity and masculinity, so homosexuals and bisexuals and heterosexuals don't actually exist, and transgenderism isn't real either. Despite this, transgenderism is a serious issue, as they were born with physical differences in the brain showing they were born an opposite gender (usually affirmed by sufferers of gender dysphoria by their divergent gender expression). This other gender, however, does not exist.

[Anonymous No.5880346]

>>5880326
>Or "race is a social construct" and "white privilege".
That's not incoherent. Race is a social construct, white privilege is a social construct (what else would it be?). The point is that the identities of each race are social constructs and that we must be aware of them to get past them. If a white man doesn't see his own privilege, how is he to argue from beyond that narrow perspective? I don't get why people think saying something is a "social construct" means it doesn't exist. That's the same as to say something with a psychological effect has no effect. What is a social construct exists, but not in a normative way, not as how things should be, they just exist in this context because of historical conditions, and thus should not be used as arguments for creating a society we want to live in, which would be arguing on "we've always done it this way".

[Anonymous No.5880349]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Desire_%28book%29

[Anonymous No.5880353]

What are the foundational texts of identity politics? I'm assuming that it's something probably like the canonical feminist texts+critical theory stuff like Foucault and Derrida+Butler, right?

[Anonymous No.5880355]

>>5880326
>Identity politics are purposefully incoherent, it seems to me, in order to allow views such as "gender is a social construct" and "transgenderism is a medical condition" to coexist. Or "race is a social construct" and "white privilege". There are no real metaethics.
>I'd personally argue it's contemporary sophistry, and in that area it's doing a mighty fine job.

Yeah, identity politics operates on its own set of cyclical reasoning, which creates barriers in putting forward criticisms beyond simply pointing out that it operates on its own set of cyclical reasoning. The rules are rigged against critiquing individual ideas within the framework because they already have the mental gymnastics justifying them prepackaged, usually under some jargon term.

[Anonymous No.5880357]

>>5880346
>race is a social construct
Usually, it seems that people are arguing that

>race is a social construct
>racism is bad
>therefore, we should remove our flawed social constructions in order to end an injustice
>by the way, we must point out the fact that all people are different races
>you will never overcome how not-white you are
>it is my burden as a white, upper middle-class urbanite to educate the inferior races
>yet I must not speak too loudly, for white voices so easily overpower the voices of other races!
>oh woe is the life of a warrior of social justice!

Obviously getting overboard, but I just personally, as a not-white, find identity politickers to be the absolute most racist people I've ever met in my entire life. People don't tend to bring up race around me, save for those types. "Oh, you're looking to be a writer? Do you plan to write about race?" Of course it is, because, you know, since I'm not white, what else would I possibly want to write about aside from my race/gender/sexuality?

How can anyone know what the fuck racial privilege is? You can sociologically examine things, sure, but in the end you can only ever know your own experiences. You only know what it's like to be you. You don't speak for all people of X race. No one does. There ain't no black Lorax.

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.5880358]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics#Debates_and_criticism

[Anonymous No.5880361]

>>5880294
kek

[Anonymous No.5880371]

I don't think being homosexual is morally wrong, but I don't know why anyone acts like it's anything other than a genetic abnormality, like being left-handed. A person wanting to cut off their penis is obviously slightly more of a serious mental disorder and I don't know why it would surprise anyone that it evokes some revulsion in heterosexuals.

The main issue seems to be that we should treat these people with empathy, which most people don't and historically never have, which is why you now see this sort of backlash that will probably soon turn into an over-correction and further exacerbate the culture war, until everyone tires out and it is a non-issue.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of homosexuals adopting children, or creating children via the use of DNA from a mother or father that the child will never meet though. Surprising that that's legal, actually.

[Anonymous No.5880380]

Identity politics seems backwards to me. Shouldn't the idea be to transcend+discard identity categories instead of creating infinitely more of them?

[Anonymous No.5880381]

I'd like to see their hands cut off

[Anonymous No.5880383]

>>5880380
>>>/pol/

Go back to your board guys, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.5880385]

>>5880357
That can't be real.. Please tell me that article isn't real.. Humans can't possibly be that stupid.

[Anonymous No.5880387]

>>5880383
don't have to be a /pol/ack to figure out that identity politics are stupid

[Maring No.5880391]

>>5880326
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I've considered the argument that you cannot both claim gender is a social construct (i.e. men and women are actually no different until society instills gender norms) and at the same time say that people are born trans. And maybe you're right, maybe there isn't really any worthwhile reading from that argues against identity politics.


>>5880327
Again, maybe I'm wrong and there aren't any worthwhile critics of the LGBT community or identity politics.


>>5880331
It's probably coming across by now, but I'm no expert on these terms. From my understanding of identity politics, this political outlook based on societal divisions from sexuality, gender, race or whatever. Typically when you're saying that someone engages in identity politics, they're taking a progressive attitude towards these groups. I've probably made myself look stupid with that definition, but if it is accurate I suppose I'm interested in identity politics EXCLUDING racial divisions.

>>5880341
Surely "being LGBT" means being an LGBT ACTIVIST, no? I've always assumed that "being LGBT" was different from just being a lesbian, a gay, trans or bisexual. in that you're grouping yourself in with these other demographics in order to appeal to a wider audience on a political level.

Bringing up gay pride paradesactually reminded me of a thought that always creeps into my head when they're mentioned and that is "would it not be more ideal to live in a society where nobody cares whether you're gay or straight? Isn't celebrating being gay contradictory to this goal?". I'm not asking for input on this, it's just a possible critical outlook which might interest me. I know the reasoning behind gay pride parades (encourages people to not feel ashamed, might cut down on suicides, that sort of thing).

As for gender being a social construct, I don't know where I stand on that.

[Anonymous No.5880394]

>>5880346
Social construct means something doesn't exist outside of the meaning we assign it as a culture, so it is in effect saying it doesn't exist. Like how when an atheist says god doesn't exist they aren't denying the cultural effect the idea of god has because of the billions of people who believe in it.

[Anonymous No.5880396]

Some theologians or natural law scholars have probably written about the phenomenom.

[Anonymous No.5880401]

I'm interested in this, but I'm also interested in mysticism and I was never able to talk about this with anyone due to prejudice from both sides.

In whatever religion or mythology, there is a clear distinction between male and female. Yin and yang, the receptive female side and the active male side, anima and animus and so on. I have a hard time figuring out what is a social construct and what is a religious universal.

For instance, Yin is associated with women, but also with black, night, coldness, etc. At first I thought this put women on the negative side, but then I realized how biased our culture is towards Yang (we value only what's positive, unlike ancient China) and that, even though there are plenty of differences between yin and yang, there is absolutely no words on one being better than other (on the contrary, the truth is in their complimentary nature). To certain daoists, androginy is a virtue. Some assume an androgenous image for Christ too. But still, is the male and female principle just characteristics that could serve whatever gender or no gender? Are these ancient texts just telling women to be receptive and stay where they are and let men rule the world? Is there any wisdom to this at all? Are we misunderstanding ancient texts? Were they changed later by men?

Learning from hunter-gatherer societies or indigenous tribes, the roles of women and men are very different, but there is no one above the other in any way. On the other side, there is no sign of homossexuality and some people argue that's because either homossexuality is not natural (by homophobics) or because they expel, pressure to be different or kill homossexuals in the same way our society does (by gender theories).

Gender theories won't even bother with this, because to them religion and mythology is just patriarchic bullshit. Mystic people couldn't give less of a shit about gender theories, they are very conservative and moralistic. But I believe that all the nonsense from religion (and there is a lot) revolves a center point that is an universal truth that gets misunderstood with time, the more we focus on the words. Religious reforms happen when people realize the right color of a robe is not the crucial issue to get to divinity. So the essential would go beyond social constructs of gender (if that is really a social construct).

I heard from a theologist once that God making Eve from the "rib" of Adam is actually about God making Eve from the "side" of Adam, that is to say, side by side, equal in importance. That changes everything and I wonder whether it is true to other ancient concepts as well.

What do you think?

[Maring No.5880406]

After reading the first few replies, I was worried as to whether this thread would only entail me defending myself from accusations of homophobia, transphobia, etc. It looks like a good few people are now getting in on this and they're not focusing it on me (which is good). Thanks all.

I'm not going to be keeping up with this thread for the next good while so don't expect replies from me. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could continue this thread and I'll be back later to note all the recommendations.

[Anonymous No.5880410]

>>5880391
Another thing to consider is the sort of neo-McCarthyism at play with identity politics. I don't think anyone's career could survive an actual examination of identity politics.

And no, I don't think being LGBT means being an activist. That's just what LGBT activists want LGBT people to think. If you are not an activist, you are a traitor or straight-actor. /lgbt/ is certainly LGBT, but it's certainly not activism.

Personally, and this is just my theory, I see identity politics as nothing more than social engineering aimed at creating a consistent voting demographic for the American Democratic Party. Much in the same way that Republicans rely on Protestantism and Traditionalism. It's just the leftist fear-mongering and societal Gerrymandering. Maybe not on purpose, but that's ultimately what it is, in my mind. Demographic control. Most any political group with an intent on winning does this.

[Anonymous No.5880411]

Fags: G-d hates them.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5880415]

>>5880401
>What do you think?
that you are silly, that you have very poor knowledge about mysticism and that you are gender-biased

[Anonymous No.5880425]

>>5880401
nah man

[Anonymous No.5880426]

>>5880380
>Shouldn't the idea be to transcend+discard identity categories

?

[Anonymous No.5880427]

>The dangers of identity politics, then, are that it casts as authentic to the self or group an identity that in fact is defined by its opposition to an Other. Reclaiming such an identity as one's own merely reinforces its dependence on this dominant Other, and further internalizes and reinforces an oppressive hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.5880431]

>>5880427
Who the fuck is this, that Sowell hack?

>>>/pol/

You guys have your own fucking board for fuck's sake. What's with all these Christ threads and homophobic threads, fuck.

[Anonymous No.5880439]

>>5880357
I see your point, but I'm also bothered by that. I think the problem is that certain things that are "true" are used for bad effects. What I mean is that when people say "let's stop talking about race", even though I can see the sense that this would cut racism, I can also see this being used to keep things how they are (and that is, white on top, everyone else down).

>>5880394
In my opinion, you can't equate "meaning we assing as a culture" to "something that doesn't exist". But as you said, an atheist denies God, but not its cultural role. To use your example, in the same way, to say "race is a social construct" is like saying "God is a social construct" and to say "white privilege" is to say "of course you defend god, you're a priest!". That is not contraditory.

[Anonymous No.5880445]

>>5880431
it's from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy you asshole

[Anonymous No.5880451]

>>5880284
look up strategic essentialism
basically, it is a tactic and you should call it out if you don't share the goals

[Anonymous No.5880452]

>>5880439
White on top, everyone else down, is such an American view of the world. Not only that, it's highly debateable. Why's white on top? Again, there isn't a black Lorax. No one speaks for black people. Your anecdotal against mine? That wouldn't be good.

When we start looking at things as "microagressions" and shit, I think we need to realize there are bigger fish to fry than residual racism or sexism. Class is always a much more important factor. And correlation is just that, so "oh, well, impoverished blacks" ain't really an argument for societal racism.

Again, all this white self-flagellation just reeks of "white man's burden" to me. White's must use their position on the top to change things so they aren't on the top, but they better not intrude too much with minorities or they'll violate the fucking Prime Directive or something.

[Anonymous No.5880457]

>>5880431
>>go back to /pol/
..cancer needs to die.
if you dont like the thread click on the minus left to it and youll never see it again. since there is nothing hateful or bigoted in this thread, its just a discussion that can be interpreted as not PC...so you cant ban this either.

[Anonymous No.5880473]

>>5880431
/pol/ is kill

[Anonymous No.5880475]

>>5880457
butthut poltard

[Anonymous No.5880478]

>>5880346
>If a white man doesn't see his own privilege, how is he to argue from beyond that narrow perspective?

It sounds like a meaningless ideologism. It's a conversation stopper. You can refuse to engage someone's arguments by saying "You're white. You'd never understand anyway", as if skin-color determines people's behavior.

In other words, the people who peddle that kind of bullshit, are as racist as the people in the 19th century, except they think the racism is justified as long as the person has white skin.

[Anonymous No.5880480]

>>5880452
I'm not American, though. I'm white, living in an underdevelopped country. Stuff like what happened in Ferguson happends here on a daily basis and there is not enough noise about it, in my opinion.

I think class, race and gender are getting all mixed up today because we are absolutely dilluted. It's impossible for me to feel "white guilt" because I don't identify with my great grand parents racist values, not even with my conservative grandparents and so on. There is this distance. I suppose that, in a similar way, it's wrong to expect for a black man to just write about race, because there are other things that makes his identity. How could one be nationalistic if countries are so similar to each other? How could one identify with a gender, if we realize no one fucking cares if your shirt is blue or pink or your hair is long or short? It all comes down to a huge mix. And while this naturally leaves conservatives in despair, there is also this effect that makes liberals furious, because of appropriation and so on.

[Anonymous No.5880481]

>>5880475
Do retarded liberals always blame /pol/ for people having different opinions?
I mean this was a decent discussion, no /pol/ involved.

[Anonymous No.5880484]

>>5880452
>or they'll violate the fucking Prime Directive or something.
9/11 keks, good job anon

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5880486]

>>5880478
the pic in >>5880357 sums up their new kind of racism pretty well. the policeman says that one shouldn't care of the race of the people he deals with while they tell him that it's not true, black persons should support blacks ignoring latinos, asians and shaming whites

[Anonymous No.5880492]

>>5880486
Agreed.

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880501]

>identifying with the imaginary
>letting cultural norms shackle your autonomy
>being a pleb who needs constant validation

lel

[Anonymous No.5880502]

>>5880299
>Being this new
>Using a trip anyway
pls go

[Anonymous No.5880503]

>>5880486
>black cop has internalized racism
>this is okay

cul /lit/ is truly a smart board

[Anonymous No.5880510]

>>5880503
>internalized racism
>views all humans as one race

Toplel, you guys really are delusional.

[Anonymous No.5880511]

>>5880486
Welcome to the future.

Race is a powerful tool for the left, why would they want us to treat people based solely on their Individual merits?

[Anonymous No.5880512]

>>5880510
holy shit, moot has ruined this fucking site by killing /pol/. They're just everywhere now.

[Anonymous No.5880515]

There's a documentary called Pride Divide which Camille Paglia was part of, and deals with the acrimonious divisions of genders within the gay pride movement. Paglia herself probably is your best bet for writings on this which piss off every side, and the documentary is pretty old at this stage.
There's also an interesting retrospective of radfem in the UK in the Lefties series by the BBC; the episode is called Angry Wimmin. It deals with political lesbianism and lesbian separatism, and though not especially critical as it is a series of interviews with women who were part of the movement, the actual lesbians' perspectives and the political lesbians retrospectives demonstrate the shakiness of the ideology and its inevitable discontinuation pretty well.
Usually for these things it's hard to find something which criticises the community at large and equally, while also being well informed. A history of the movement would bring up things like lesbian separatism, transexclusionism, etc, but the communities which claim those titles now are also more disparate and on the wrong side of controversy compared to their position in the community's earlier days.

[Anonymous No.5880516]

>>5880512
the people complaining about /pol/ are 10x worse than /pol/

[Anonymous No.5880517]

>>5880512
Nah, it's more your beliefs being insane than /pol/ invading the board.

[Anonymous No.5880522]

>>5880515
>mfw radical second wave feminism was created solely to get fat ugly lesbians laid

It's hilarious, honestly
>sex between men and women is dominated by a power gap
>heterosexual sex is an act perpetrated UPON women
>in fact, all sex between men and women is tantamount to rape
>men are rapists
>women's attraction to men is bred into them, and is an effect of the patriarchy
>ergo, have sex with me, for I have freed you from your shackles!

[Anonymous No.5880525]

>>5880522
Uh, no, most of the women in the documentary who were not ideological lesbians seemed a bit weirded out that people would want to fuck them for ideology.

[Anonymous No.5880528]

>>5880525
Dworkin is a big lesbian (both figuratively and literally), and she basically did what she did to get laid by hot young women.

The radfem ideology, the really crazy "all sex with men is rape" stuff, literally can lead only to lesbianism. I feel like lesbians would push this, though I don't know why.

[Anonymous No.5880530]

>>5880522
Well this seems like feminism taken to its logical end.
The rise of pro sex feminism has led to a hilarious amount of inconsistency and double standards.

[Anonymous No.5880537]

>>5880478
>as if skin-color determines people's behavior.
It's not the "white" that is determinant here, it is the "privilege" part that is. A white man cannot understand the struggle of the black man not because he is white, but because he has a privilege. When people say "check your privilege" means to say: you better understand the cultural and historical package that you bring with you, otherwise you're biased as fuck.

Reverse racism is a complete fallacy. You are talking about giving voice to minorities that don't have a voice and if a white person is talking on how these minorities should act, this minority is still without a voice. Even if a man wants women to have equal rights, he won't be fighting for it if he doesn't let them speak and act by their own merit.

To have a bunch of white guys talk on how to make the lives of blacks better is not different from having a bunch of white guys talking on how to torture a black slave. The end result is that the black man is still in their power, has no voice and are not making the decisions by himself. He is denied of subjetivity in that sense, which is the real issue.

This "oh, you are just as racist as them" is ridiculous because, again, it's not that the person has white skin, it's that the person has white skin AND doesn't realize how that makes her biased. White people are the first ones to say "we are all equal", "let's stop talking about racism and it will go away". It doesn't mean black people can't be racist (or that women can't be sexist against themselves), just like the black cop who sees it as a non-issue. No wonder he is a cop fighting protesters with that opinion.

[Anonymous No.5880543]

>>5880528
It's ideologues who push lesbianism, not lesbians themselves. I get you want to blame the outcome as the source, but it doesn't really reflect how the ideology creates lesbianism, nor what lesbianism which is not created out of ideology is. Actual lesbians, who would have been so without the ideology, are more harmed by political lesbianism than political lesbians. Imagine trying to accuse a radfem nut of lesbian rape and how that would get you ostracised within a radfem cuckoo farm. Political lesbianism demands that lesbians themselves must stick to their ideology or become the enemy, because political lesbians don't actually give a shit about lesbianism, they care about retarded ideology.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaYUBeVdnbU
I suspect Dworkin to not be an actual dyke so much as a negative heterosexual- her lesbian activity seems to stem more from her ideological distaste for men than any actual appreciation of women. That's the kind of fake dyke which is dangerous to actual dykes because they have equally little compunction of declaring women who disagree with them to be rapists, not victims of female rape, and, brainwashed by their ideological enemy. I wouldn't sleep with Dworkin not just because she's fat, but because she's a psychopath and don't finger crazy is a good life practice.

[Anonymous No.5880544]

I'm kind of surprised by this thread. I always viewed identity politics as something bad.
And before you send me back to /pol/ or whatever, I gathered that from studying political science, not some racist or whatever site...

Anyway, the reason identity politics is bad is, because it's prime example of commodification. It's just selling you stuff to make you yourself. You can only be yourself if you buy this and that and wear these type of clothes, listen to this type of music and consume this type of products.

It's the postmodern capitalism at its finest.

[Anonymous No.5880546]

>>5880537
>The end result is that the black man is still in their power, has no voice and are not making the decisions by himself. He is denied of subjetivity in that sense, which is the real issue.
The only way blacks are ever going to be in power is if they take it, not if they and their SJW overlords nag society for equality. And blacks are never going to take power because they are numerically inferior on top of being lazy. If anyone is going to take power from the white majority in western countries(as opposed to like china grabbing global power9 it's going to be the muslims, because they have the drive to conquer, instead of relying on pity handouts like the nignogs.

[Anonymous No.5880548]

>>5880543
Well, I have no beef with lesbians. I just legitimately find political lesbianism humorous, just like the "males are the superior sex, therefore homosex is the superior sex" threads on /lgbt/.

I see what you mean, though.

[Anonymous No.5880551]

>>5880537
A black man cannot understand the struggle of another black man.

A man can only understand his own struggle.

[Anonymous No.5880553]

>>5880537
>A white man cannot understand the struggle of the black man not because he is white

That's exactly what I said. You guys think that because someone is white, they are axiomatically incapable of empathizing with anyone of another skin color's plight.

So yes, you are racists, your racism is just socially acceptable.

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880555]

>>5880544
not capitalism, more like fractional reserve corporate fiat post-keynesianism

[Anonymous No.5880557]

>>5880555
>fractional reserve corporate fiat post-keynesianism
Whatever that means. But it's still "capitalism".

[Anonymous No.5880558]

>>5880548
>"males are the superior sex, therefore homosex is the superior sex" threads on /lgbt/.
lel, did we make /lgtb/ read Plato?

But yeah, political lesbianism is pretty retarded, it would just be nice if they were all past tense so we could laugh a bit louder.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5880559]

>>5880537
i don't even understand if it's an elaborate trolling or you are seriously retarded

i could understand if you claim that citizens of developed nations have 'privilege' over undeveloped, or that there is racism inside less developed countries, that's true, they have because they managed to be born in a better country, there is, because their society isn't developed enough, but when you speak about blacks who live in a modern country where they have the same rights, access to education etc as whites and on top of that they have additional approval and support as blacks, all 'privileges' which whites have they deserved with their toil and effort which blacks refuse to do even being encouraged

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880561]

>>5880551
Correct. you can never see into the mind of another; we are sovereign.

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880567]

>>5880557
Nope. Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production.' Being so general, it can apply to anything, therefore making it almost a non-sequitur.

[Anonymous No.5880570]

>>5880567
Yeah, but it's still the current mode of production.
Maybe I'm just a filthy pleb, but I have no idea what fractional reserve corporate fiat post-keynesianism, would even mean. I mean I understand every word. And I kind of imagine what post-keynesianism could be. But throw all that shit together and it makes no sense...

[Anonymous No.5880572]

>>5880567
>Being so general

Not him, but "the private ownership of the means of production" is not general in any sense. It's a very specific definition, but I can see that eludes you.

The fact is, most of the West are liberal democracies, with mixed economies of varying degrees of free market and state capitalism.

[Anonymous No.5880576]

>>5880559
> but when you speak about blacks who live in a modern country where they have the same rights, access to education etc as whites and on top of that they have additional approval and support as blacks, all 'privileges' which whites have they deserved with their toil and effort which blacks refuse to do even being encouraged
Not true. Check your privilege, tripfag.

[Anonymous No.5880581]

>>5880576
>Not true.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.5880585]

>>5880576
I don't even know if this is serious, or a joke any more.
Remember when check your privilege was a sure way to troll people???

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880600]

>>5880572
What separates private ownership from public? It's just semantics.
There may be democratic values in the west, but republics are what the mode of government is.

>>5880570
fraction reserve banking backed by fiat currency with multinational corporate domination of commerce in a post-keynesian economic model
to call it capitalism is gross over simplification

[Anonymous No.5880602]

Zizek condemns identity politics in at least one of his books. I imagine that most serious Communists would do. I also think DFW does in his essay "Authority and American Usage", although as a digression rather than the main point of the essay.

[Anonymous No.5880609]

>>5880600
>What separates private ownership from public? It's just semantics.

Really? There is clearly a difference between an individual owning a factory, and everything in it, and the State taking control of something. History has shown that it has immense differences between the two modes, in terms of efficiency and value creation.

[Anonymous No.5880625]

I'd like to see a serious philosopher destroy identity politics.

[Anonymous No.5880631]

>>5880625

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4RjLOxrloJ0

[Anonymous No.5880658]

>>5880631
>Derrida
>serious philosopher

[Anonymous No.5880659]

>>5880625
are there even any 'serious' proponents of identity politics?

[Anonymous No.5880661]

>>5880502
You're the newbie. That's not a trip, it's a name.

Baffoon.

[Anonymous No.5880665]

>>5880659
I don't think so. Which is probably why no philosophers have created a knock out critique of it yet.

[Anonymous No.5880674]

>>5880659
Of the tumblr brand? No; because the tumblr brand of ideology takes itself from no respected philosopher, but from a hodge-podge bastardization of various strains of thought. Even Judith Butler, who many people associate with "Tumblrism", had much more insightful things to say in her writing than the garbage that gets spouted out of every teenage feminism blog, but nobody knows this but teenage feminists don't actually read philosophy, only Gawker and Buzzfeed, and the Shillington Post.

[Anonymous No.5880678]

>>5880674
*because teenage feminists don't actually read

[Anonymous No.5880747]

>>5880341
>Gender is a social construct,
dropp'd like a twenty inch solid steel dragon dildo

[Anonymous No.5880750]

>>5880674

You need to get out more, anon

[Anonymous No.5880756]

>>5880665
that, or it's that they're mostly spineless liberal wankers nowadays

[Anonymous No.5880799]

Just read the western canon.

[Anonymous No.5880803]

>>5880674
Butlerian Jihad when?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad

[Anonymous No.5880810]

>>5880665
zizek dropped a couple of disses to postmodernism in one of lectures i watched recently, but yeah, no serious criticisms

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880811]

>>5880609
Can't the state privately own something from the perspective of the individual? If I have no access to it, wouldn't it be private to to the state?

[Anonymous No.5880818]

>>5880600
Jesus you are an enormous faggot.

Commodification isn't special property of 'buzzword Keynesland' or whatever.

[Anonymous No.5880827]

>>5880810
Zizek's entire outlook is opposed to this current incarnation of identity politics. I think he most explicitly repudiates it in First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, if I remember right.

[Anonymous No.5880831]

Is there a conflict between class politics and identity politics?

You'd think Marxists would not align themselves with people who focus entirely on the latter.

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5880836]

>>5880818
Perhaps not, but it would be a symptom of this complex system. The global paradigm might be bigger than you thought to conceive.

And capitalism is the buzzword, friend.

[Anonymous No.5880839]

>>5880831
There's a huge conflict.
The LGBT crowd inadvertently ends up hating the working class because the working class is exactly the group of people they write off as bigoted and homophobic.
Nothing is more ironic than their claims that they're a revolutionary force fighting for the good of everyone.

[Anonymous No.5880841]

So, if identity doesn't come from some essence, it would be that it's always a product of conflict (or an interaction, at its most benign)? Therefore, the identities of both the dominant and subservient side in the binary relation are created (by both sides? - I see how this part might be controversial) through the conflict. The oppressed choose to stick with their identity (as in 'woman', 'black', 'trans', etc.) only because it's along those lines that they are being oppressed, so they can only mount a defense along those very lines - this would be strategic essentialism, right?

Fast forward to the supposed moment of the final resolution of the conflict - do the identities wither away at that point? Also, is there such a thing as an identity produced outside of conflict? To push things to the limit - can one ever name things or do actions (and by that engaging with others and essentially affecting their identity) without it being considered violent in even the slightest way? Is it conceivable that one day the State might have to be the proxy for all interaction as the only way to assure that no one infringes upon anyone's rights?

[Anonymous No.5880853]

Identity politics is an attempt to claim the unclaimable X that is at the essential heart of all identity. People want to gain selves by redefining themselves. As Kierkegaard would say, they're in despair because they want to be themselves (i.e., the identity they loudly proclaim with pronouons like xi), and simultaneously they are in despair because they don't want to be themselves (i.e., ultimately, beings that stand in relation to an Other).
Because they flee from one identity to another, they'll never relate to themselves as themselves; they'll never relate to the ground of their ultimate identity; they'll never realize that they are Spirit.

[Anonymous No.5880856]

>>5880841
>So, if identity doesn't come from some essence, it would be that it's always a product of conflict (or an interaction, at its most benign)
m8, the opposite of essentialist grounds of being is not essentialist grounds of being

[Anonymous No.5880857]

>>5880836
>capitalism is [a] buzzword
Marx BTFO

[Anonymous No.5880861]

>>5880856
What would that imply in this case? You're basically saying that the conflict is the essence in my description, right?

[Anonymous No.5880868]

>>5880861
Yeah, it's reducing it to a singular trait which defines identity, which would make identity's essence smaller, but it's still essentialism. Just less essential traits, so it's actually a firmer grounding of the essential trait of identity than some other forms of essentialism

[Anonymous No.5880872]

>>5880868
Maybe my word choice was bad in the original post. I'm saying that one is 'given' the identity through his situation (conflicts), but I am not saying that that identity is the 'real' identity. It's merely the context that is placed upon the person (much like one's place of birth - you can be a nationalist about it, or you can simply acknowledge that you were born there and leave it at that, but in either case it does influence your perspective).

[Anonymous No.5880874]

>>5880385
Yeah it's real https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbURJeicSG0

[Anonymous No.5880877]

>>5880874
>You're a bunch of fuckin' puppets for the new world order
kek

[Anonymous No.5880884]

>>5880831
No, there doesn't have to be. Marxists interested in identity will often think of how class intersects in the formation and limitations of subjectivity.

In any case, focusing on class within capitalism to such an insane degree as spawning all forms of persecution is pants on head stupid. It's not like prior to capitalism that racism, sexism, ableism didn't exist, they were just expressed in different ways that fell into the logic of the political-economic system. In any case, in most Western Countries, class has become irrelevant.

There are of course a not insignificant number of people in Western liberal democracies who suffer of necessity, but by and large, all manner of material need is suppressed by the State (through welfare and other social programs).

Given how the system has existed now and assuming its trend towards greater emphasis on social welfare, any class consciousness can really not come about in ways it came about in previous times (i.e., no food, no jobs=class unrest).

[Anonymous No.5880885]

>identity politics are inherently schismatic
This so much. I am all for minority rights, but it is amazing how much internal drama brews in those tumblr communities. They rarely agree and any little thing can spark a shitstorm.

[Anonymous No.5880886]

>>5880874
>You will never reach the same pinnacle...as a white man because you are black
How is that not racist?

[Anonymous No.5880891]

>>5880886
>Obama

[Anonymous No.5880893]

Is it oppressive if a lesbian refuses a mtf trans person? Does pre-op/post-op even matter?

[Anonymous No.5880900]

>>5880872
I...I'm not sure you understand what essentialism is, anon. This still makes conflict the essential trait of identity which is more essentialist than systems which would allow conflict or wearing the colour green to both be essential traits of identity; in the latter case someone who wore green but was to given identity through conflict would still have some traits of identity, and this allows for near but not quite situations; making conflict the essential trait alone of identity just grounds identity in conflict alone, ignoring many other traits and requiring conflict.

There's also a problem you're going to run into where this does not make identity an essential trait of conflict; it allows for conflicts which have a different essential trait set to conflict as the trait set for identity; if that larger trait set does not exist then conflict is identity, and identity conflict, which makes as much sense as any other arbitrary combination of essences. If conflict is no different in essence to identity, they can only be as constant as each other, and one can never be murdered while one is unconscious.

I'd recommend reading about what essentialism is, because you are just giving a new essence to identity, not removing essence from identity.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5880903]

>>5880893
they are the man's shock troops sent to shatter the lesbian and feminist unity from inside

[Anonymous No.5880905]

>>5880900
>but was to given
but was **not** given identity through conflict.

[Anonymous No.5880908]

lol. this thread is just straight white resentment.

[Anonymous No.5880911]

>>5880908
Just like identity politics is straight colored/non-cis resentment.
Fuck off, spook.

[Anonymous No.5880918]

>ctrl + f: Stirner
>0 results
>“You are more than a human being, therefore you are also a human being; you are more than a male, but you are also a male; but humanity and masculinity do not express you exhaustively, and you can therefore be indifferent to everything that is held up to you as ‘true humanity’ or ‘true masculinity.’
>identity politics BTFO in 1845

[Anonymous No.5880919]

>>5880900
Ok, I think I see. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.5881019]

>>5880839
The idea of workers owning the means of production is revolting to them primarily because they don't actually work

[Anonymous No.5881027]

>>5881019
A large part of it is that they don't understand the importance of labor at all.

[Anonymous No.5881036]

>>5880294
>implying jews didn't create the best nazi porn

[Anonymous No.5881038]

What about "fatphobia", /lit/?

Surely no one deserves to be humiliated for being fat, but modern activism seems to be setting out to normalise obesity. Isn't that a dangerous concept as far as public health goes?

[Anonymous No.5881041]

>>5881038
Yes.
Fat shaming is a good thing.
If people made fun of my eating habits more often, I'd go to the gym more often.

[Anonymous No.5881049]

>>5881038
> but modern activism seems to be setting out to normalise obesity
Its not. Its set out to stop bodily shaming and empower self-choice on the matter.

>Isn't that a dangerous concept as far as public health goes?¨
Its not like the culture of humiliation has worked so far.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5881054]

>>5881038
aesthetics is volatile, there are some evidences that fat people were treated differently in the past, but i don't believe the modern fatties will succeed to change the current trend

[Anonymous No.5881056]

>>5881038
this:
>>5881049

I'm pretty sure that fat shaming was invented so that everyone who's fat and doesn't want to come to terms with that fact, can feel better about themselves...

On other hand, fat acceptance is the prime ground for commodification. Hey just be yourself, eat at McDonalds, it doesn't really hurt you. Fat people can be as healthy as thin, so go ahead and eat 3 big macs a day. McDonald's accepts you for who you are.

[Anonymous No.5881057]

>>5880383
This is actually a very valid argument.
I've seen a lot of radfeminists using it against transfeminists

[Anonymous No.5881061]

>>5881056
Whoops wrong post, I meant this:
>>5881041

[Anonymous No.5881063]

>>5881049
The choice to become obese isn't a good choice, and no society should allow itself to become one that consists of people who are, on average, tens of pounds over anything resembling a healthy weight.
Just because you have the right to become a fat piece of shit doesn't mean you should, and it doesn't give you the right to rub the fact that you made the choice to become a fat piece of shit in the faces of people who decided they'd rather take care of themselves.

[Anonymous No.5881067]

>>5881038
>Surely no one deserves to be humiliated for being fat
I'm not saying that they deserve to be humiliated but they don't deserve to not be humiliated.

[Anonymous No.5881071]

Alain De Benoist- non a la theorie du genre is excellent.

Gender theory, american feminism and gay movements (as distinct to homosexuals) are all much of the same

[Anonymous No.5881077]

>>5881067
If we stick with Žižek and even more Lacan, we could argue, that fat people are humiliated, because they're enjoying in something that thin people are purposely trying to avoid.

[Anonymous No.5881094]

>>5881077
So what? Does that make the enjoyment good? Is the attempt to avoid that enjoyment bad?
It's a matter of bodily health, not just psychology. Fat people deserve to be humiliated because in this day and age, being fat means only that you eat a lot and don't exercise a lot. Back in the day, it would mean you were rich because you could afford food that made you fat. Now, it's mainly poorfags that eat food that makes you fat.

[Anonymous No.5881103]

>>5881094
It is about jealousy to an extent. Here you are eating healthy, going to the gym and denying yourself any candy or sweets. And there's this fat whale, who just gobbles everything that comes in front of them.

Also fat people shouldn't be humiliated, but they should have to be warned on risks their unhealthy lifestyle may lead to.

And poor fat people should be humiliated even more, because they have no choice. Well they maybe have it, but are not aware of it. Obviously you could eat healthy and cheap, but that really depends where you live and what are your options...

[Anonymous No.5881110]

>>5881103
>It is about jealousy to an extent
Yes, but that doesn't make obesity good.
>And poor fat people should be humiliated even more, because they have no choice
No, this is completely fucktarded reasoning. The conditions that give people no choice but to eat shitty food (if such conditions actually exist, I've been kind of pulling stuff out of my ass) should be eliminated and everyone, regardless of class, should be educated on the importance of not eating pure fried fat for every meal.
Fat people who have no will to lose weight know the social consequences of their choice (i.e., humiliation and not being able to fit in seats on airplanes) and should just deal with them.

[Anonymous No.5881117]

>>5881110
Actually I'm not saying that obesity is good.
I'm just saying that there's more to fat shaming, than you'd want to admit.

[Anonymous No.5881122]

>>5881117
There's more to everything than we'd like to admit. I don't see your point. Are you pro-fat shaming or anti-fat shaming?

[Anonymous No.5881127]

>>5881122
I'm indifferent. I'll do it sometimes, when I feel it's appropriate, but I don't think it will help or anything.

Also I'm pretty sure, it's just me and you bumping this thread, so I'll stop now.

[Anonymous No.5881132]

>>5881103
>It is about jealousy to an extent.
No, it's because people don't like ugliness or weakness, and obesity is both in one(you are ugly because you are weak), so they attack it. It's the same reason why people here post funny images of people who look like shit and images of massive betas, people naturally attack these things. It's easy to imagine how such a behavior would have evolutionary benefits.

[Anonymous No.5881154]

I'm actually writing a book that takes a look at trans girls. I'm normal, so it'll be a look from the outside, nothing too in depth. I'm in deep cover in a tranny chat room. Holy fuck these people are mental. I don't mean to judge an entire group by one small cell, a cell that may very well be the dregs of the trans community, but I'm convinced that for many people, their trans status is a mental illness rather than a legitimate biological anomaly. They sound like beta males fleeing their own masculinity. There's some kind of commentary in there about how disposable men are seen in our society, but the thought process for many of them is "I'm not manly at all so this means I'm a woman."

My book is gonna be ugly and twisted and the best part is that the most disturbing things my trans characters say are going to be pulled directly out of this chat room.

[Anonymous No.5881164]

>>5880908
lol. identity politics is just people who arent white males whining about how white males are better than them at everything.