|
Kyrie eleison posted:Personally, I think the left should continue to consume their own. Not only does it directly reduce their number, and intimidate others away from participating; but those who are victimized by this process, and survive, sometimes become powerful anti-left speakers. Yeah, it's not like a Republican Senator has ever threatened to sing "Dixie" to a black woman in an elevator until she cries.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a funny sentiment, that people will cite as an example of "the absurdity of radical leftism", that a conservative can't help but be puzzled by. It's a "radical leftist" concept to be mindful around women? To recognize that they might be intimidated by the presence of a man? This is common sense conservatism. You seem to have conservatism confused with decency. Conservatives are all about using fear and shame against women, in work, school, home and chance encounters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Don't turn this thread into one about kyrie, it's not. The right-wing has people more obnoxious and toxic than even the worst tumblr stereotype, but can get away with it because it serves entrenched interests. The issue here is one of internal reform. Honestly I feel that even the subject of this thread is just symptom of a deeper problem, there being no 'center' of leftism with which to orient around. OWS is a good example, it tried to be all things to all people failed. It had a phobia of any kind of bureaucratic procedures or organization and as a result ended up being a joke. I'm not even sure united fronts can really work in such an environment, without some kind of core to build on. Like this right here: Helsing posted:So in conclusion I'd say that the biographical details given by the author actually support her thesis: her leftism was based more on emotion than reason, and as such once she left campus she quickly abandoned her commitment to any kind of radicalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:. The right-wing has people more obnoxious and toxic than even the worst tumblr stereotype, but can get away with it because it serves entrenched interests. The issue here is one of internal reform. Helsing posted:Anti-intellectualism and groupthink are serious problems amongst the contemporary left. the left = Decisions of Production/What Gets Done Should Come from the Bottom Up* while the right = Production Decisions Come from the Top Down, the ideas of the common folk on the right are not actually intended to be incorporated into the system. So disorganization and rancor among the masses actually helps entrenched interests because it means less organized opposition to the policy setting of and exploitation by the elite. (I think that there should be a distinguishing between the elite of the right and the common folk of the right. The two groups do not have the same objectives.) Meanwhile, dysfunction in the common folk on the left and inability to put together enough diverse ideas for a Whole Society's Needs will result in dysfunction in the social organism as a whole (if it's bottom-up, then lack of organization or groupthink can result in simultaneous shortages and surpluses of different things within that society) *left examples: anarchism, communism (the economic system, not the lingo meaning 'revolutionary socialism as a way to try to get to communism with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the meantime), trade unionism/syndicalism right examples: monarchism, nationalism and fascism, theocracy or any other form of society with high stratification monopolized by one high organization liberalism is center in current worldly conditions regarding the predominant mode of production That's my framing of Left-Right, at least. It's probably wrong in some way, but I figure as long as we're talking about leftism and rightism, we might as well define what's left and right Rodatose fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'd agree with the author that the subjectivizing of truth is much, much less useful to radical politics then the more standard universalizing. The goal of radical politics shouldn't be to pat people on the head and tell them they're special, nor simply seriously argue that only certain people's perspectives are valid and beyond question. Everything is at risk, nothing is sacred, and the owl of minerva only flies at dusk. All we have is impersonal data. The only valid path to truth is to deny any personal experience: you go off what you can prove. I wouldn't seriously argue that anyone's perspectives are beyond question, but surely you can see the absurdity of a rich white guy telling a poor black guy about what it's like to live in the inner city, right? I'm also not sure that to "deny any personal experience" is the only valid path to truth - or power. People sharing personal experiences is valuable for understanding your and others' roles in society, and in building actionable consensus. I'm not denying the value of data, but no data is impersonal - everything from its collection to communication to evaluation to meaning is influenced by the personal experiences of the people working with it. Vermain posted:In the absence of any real (apparent) hope of controlling the levers of society, phatic or ritual actions tend to suffice instead: Tumblr wars, solidarity rallies, etc. (Not that I mean to disparage those sorts of things, but I feel that we tend to participate in a lot of them mostly to alleviate feelings of helplessness rather than with a long-term strategy of concrete change in mind.) Yeah, and I'm thinking specifically about minority participation in these ritual actions here, you could certainly find historical parallels among other marginalized groups. This goes back to my earlier point, which is that marginalized groups tend not to have access to the production of "data," so to them personalized experiences are a valuable means of articulating truth. edit - Was it Chuck D who, back in the day, said that rap music is the black community's CNN? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_of_the_Pharisees
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You seem to have conservatism confused with decency. Conservatives are all about using fear and shame against women, in work, school, home and chance encounters. I always get the feeeling that, at least the modern 'merican version of it, conservatism came from at least a sense of being better than the 'other'. It could be morally better, better 'class' better taste, better use of time, just better. Government can't do better with my money than I can. Government shouldn't do anything to my business because I know better. This isn't purely binary but tends to follow certain exclusionary groupings that radiate outward from their egocentric view of the world. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is common sense conservatism. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The bottom line is that at its best leftwing radicalism is powerful because it actually offers to concretely improve people's lives. That's the great power of the left: that through solidarity you can give people the power to demand better wages and benefits, better representation for their community, a better life for themselves and their kids. When the left manages to focus itself on those goals it can still win significant victories. I think it's interesting that whilst celebrating the victories this woman helped achieve, you still can't resist taking a few swipes at her for being successful. Yes the left is capable of improving peoples lives, no it never will whilst everyone is squabbling over identity politics. She helped fight against increasing tuition fees, an actual concrete cause she could effect at the time, but this still reflects her privilege because only rich white people get to complain about tuition fees. Now she has her engineering degree (is this actually true or have goons made this up because she talks about paying attention to systems in the final paragraphs?) she's basically the enemy. She didn't change her political views, her situation changed so now she's not one of you. A competent movement might communicate that someone at a different point in their life that can help in a different way, or contribute to a push more closely connected to them, but the left is so wrapped up in who's more oppressed that there is no way to join without miring yourself in what an awful, rotten, privileged monster you are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Does any of this poo poo even matter, given that the left has absolutely no chance of affecting any significant change in society?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Does any of this poo poo even matter, given that the left has absolutely no chance of affecting any significant change in society? Alternatively, does this poo poo matters because it is _why_ the left has no chance of affecting any significant change in society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Give up Left. You can't win. We have the (moral) high ground. *The Left screams with rage trying only to get its legs caught off and fall into lava*
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Does any of this poo poo even matter, given that the left has absolutely no chance of affecting any significant change in society? This is my favorite piece of conservative propaganda. It's like an iPhone, it just works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Mortley posted:http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/ Yea I remember going to college in the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
The left lost a lot when it lost it's major organizational structures and leaders, and it hasn't managed to rebuild since then. This seems to be a symptom of that. The government has not shied away from breaking the law and using violence to discredit and destroy effective liberal groups. This isn't exactly a secret. They have outright murdered people to disrupt radical liberal organizations. That's something that's difficult to fully recover from in the best of situations. And it's pretty obvious that even if they haven't been that extreme, there are still many attempts to undercut any sort of cohesive, effective, functional liberal movement. There's no evidence they stopped infiltrating and undermining leftist groups, although at least it seems like the government has stopped outright killing people. It may just be a lack of anyone threatening enough to need to be killed. Hoover's legacy is still with us, regardless, just like the legacy of racism is. Conservatives and the powerful have made it clear they see this as a war they plan to win, and they've dedicated a large amount of time to insuring there is no cohesive resistance even now. Look at how they destroy organizations like ACORN, that are barely leftist. They have money on their side, the power structure on their side, and organization on their side since their organizations persist, on account of how they are not targeted for disruption and destruction (in general). Meanwhile, the absolutely defend their own, even when their own are crooks and fraudsters, like with the whole IRS non-scandal. So you get much of the radical left adopting a form that is minimally effective but maximally survivable - a group think cult-like format. When you're part of a movement that's been historically targeted for infiltration and disruption by the FBI, this sort of purging and circular firing squad behaviour is kind of expected to a certain extent. Although obviously it's been taken to insane levels, and is never a particularly good idea. Basically, these sort of attitudes will likely always exist, which is why it's important to have people who've grown beyond it and the institutional knowledge to keep the movement effective and focused on real solutions to real problems, while still using the anger as a tool to keep people impassioned. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I wouldn't seriously argue that anyone's perspectives are beyond question, but surely you can see the absurdity of a rich white guy telling a poor black guy about what it's like to live in the inner city, right? Depends, did that poor black guy grow up in rural Mississippi? If so what would he know about inner-city Chicago? See what you just did there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You might want to reread the article- you're pretty badly misconstruing it. Ok, I read it slowly and more deliberate this time and... she doesn't really say anything at all. She takes a kind tone, and seems to genuinely care to some extent, but I must just be too far removed from her world because her criticisms just smell like strawman bullshit. loving 'otherkin'? Really? That is not a real thing, it's a silly trope invented to shut up people who criticize various societal bullshit. People are barely making end's meat and are getting royally screwed, often literally (see: rape and how we allow people to get away with it because it makes us uncomfortable). And she starts talking poo poo about being nice to people and 'otherkin' as if that is a thing that actually matters and is relevant anywhere at all ever. The whole 'stop being so angry all the time about everything even though everything everywhere is infuriating' is pretty good advice, though. If you can't take a step back, marvel, and laugh at this absurd hosed-up existence then you'll drive yourself 6ft into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Ok, I read it slowly and more deliberate this time and... she doesn't really say anything at all. She takes a kind tone, and seems to genuinely care to some extent, but I must just be too far removed from her world because her criticisms just smell like strawman bullshit. loving 'otherkin'? Really? That is not a real thing, it's a silly trope invented to shut up people who criticize various societal bullshit. She mentions Otherkin for one paragraph and it's to say effectively "just because someone says they're oppressed doesn't mean you need to take their word as God". And yes, they do exist, the market for them is too large to be entirely a joke (even if they themselves are very very small in number).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Reminds me a little of this piece I read a while back Yeah, gently caress journalists, researchers, and anyone else who dares to share information without immediately magicking themselves into a high enough political office to singlehandedly enforce their preferred response to that information! Public discourse is meaningless, and anyone who writes an article without including a full academic-grade bibliography is a "pop" writer and a hack who blah blah blah, seriously? Okay, sarcasm time is over (for now), because I'm noticing a disturbing trend. I know that preaching your superiority over the dumb sheeple who like popular things is a time-honored internet nerd tradition, and blaming victims for their failure to achieve is already a Thing that minorities suffer regularly so I guess it's not super surprising to see it pointed at the fight for equality itself, but would you people just get over yourselves? This is disturbingly similar to Reddit's "Tumblr SJW scum" stuff, and I'm not inclined to trust that, partly because everyone I ever see bringing it up is an absolute shithead in some way and partly because at it's core it's basically a tone argument cloaked in patronizing concern trolling. Mortley posted:ReV VAdAUL, How on earth did you use that quote and make that analogy? She writes that gay views on homophobia "more important"; you write that that equates to "women's experiences of being women are irrelevant." Yes, some poorly educated and hateful people will misread her, but that's always the case with any public rhetoric. The thing a lot of people miss about institutional racism is that even members of the affected minority display that racism. Many black cops, for example, give the same disproportionately bad treatment to blacks as white cops do. This is because discrimination isn't just a personal thing - it can worm its way into culture and afflict society as a whole, even the discriminated-against group. Remember in the nineties when people used to talk about how important it was that black teens have successful role models to show that they weren't worthless and had a chance to get out there and become successful? That was a real thing that mattered, because discrimination invades society and culture to such a degree that the victim really starts believing it - that even if they themselves aren't inferior, the rest of their race is. Of course, white weasel words helped encourage that as well; when "okay maybe blacks aren't inherently inferior but their culture is inferior and driving them to inferiority, just look at those kids with their rap music and saggy pants and their weird hairstyles and their ebonics and their crack cocaine" was A Thing then it was really easy for black cops and employers to develop a habit of discriminating against blacks without actually thinking blacks were inferior, because successful blacks were often a prime target for the concept that black culture was a mark of inferiority and failure. Also, and this is especially true in immigration, there is a heavy gently caress You Got Mine factor. People who managed to successfully legally immigrate, struggling through a years-long ordeal, are such sticklers about immigration precisely because it was so difficult - they don't think it's fair that other immigrants people should be able to live in the US without going through the same kind of ordeal, especially illegals who just hopped the border against the rules. You know how some anti-DRM people whine that DRM just punishes legit buyers because pirates will just break it while people who followed the rules have to deal with dumb limitations? It's kiiiiind of like that, only with a lot more anger because immigration and its associated hurdles are a far bigger deal than how many computers you can install your videogames on - the legal immigrants feel like any kind treatment or amnesty toward border-hoppers is unfair to the people who suffered through the considerable difficulty and time commitment of legal immigration. People tend to think that any given minority is a) a hivemind whose members all agree on everything, and b) always votes in their own best interests and those of their overall group, but neither of those are true. There are women who are anti-abortion, there are gay people who are anti-gay marriage, and there are black employers who would rather hire a white worker because they believe black applicants are lazy or poor workers. None of that really changes the oppression and discrimination those groups face, though, nor does it even change the debate that much. The GOP's token black officials never stopped anyone from calling the Republican Party racist, for example, and pro-discrimination people have trotted out the words of those kinds of people as evidence that discrimination is right after all for decades. duck monster posted:Unfortunately with a lot of activists now learning their politics from tumblr outrage blogs and loving facebook memes, that central insight just isn't being transmitted and its like all that hard earned wisdom from a couple of centuries of activist and progressive theory and praxis is just being ignored. Activism leaving the halls of political philosophy and being taken up by the common people is a good thing, though. You shouldn't need to know who Foucault was or what queer theory is in order to push for equality for gay people, and I'd argue that elitism like that is far more appropriate for the "circular firing squad" than popular sentiments traveling across widely-used social communication platforms without philosophical essays attached.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Fargo Fukes posted:I think it's interesting that whilst celebrating the victories this woman helped achieve, you still can't resist taking a few swipes at her for being successful. Yes the left is capable of improving peoples lives, no it never will whilst everyone is squabbling over identity politics. She helped fight against increasing tuition fees, an actual concrete cause she could effect at the time, but this still reflects her privilege because only rich white people get to complain about tuition fees. Now she has her engineering degree (is this actually true or have goons made this up because she talks about paying attention to systems in the final paragraphs?) she's basically the enemy. She didn't change her political views, her situation changed so now she's not one of you. A competent movement might communicate that someone at a different point in their life that can help in a different way, or contribute to a push more closely connected to them, but the left is so wrapped up in who's more oppressed that there is no way to join without miring yourself in what an awful, rotten, privileged monster you are. You can bet if she still followed the correct denomination of her ideology, she would still count as oppressed enough for her voice to matter. The problem with modern radical left is not that they are too radical or ideologically pure, it's just that they created a set of beliefs that allows them to explain away any criticism and act like a dick towards everyone who doesn't speak the right words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:You can bet if she still followed the correct denomination of her ideology, she would still count as oppressed enough for her voice to matter. The problem with modern radical left is not that they are too radical or ideologically pure, it's just that they created a set of beliefs that allows them to explain away any criticism and act like a dick towards everyone who doesn't speak the right words. The ability to belittle and dismiss someone's point without addressing it: a power unique to leftism and possessed by no human who has not fallen prey to left-wing radicalism. Sorry, I know I'm opening myself up to being dismissed out of hand by a ~tone argument~, but it's hard to restrain the sarcasm in the face of things so obviously wrong. Not inly is dismissiveness not unique to leftism, but explaining away any criticism and acting like a dick toward everyone who doesn't say the right magic words or have the right magic attributes has worked wonders for conservatives, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ability to belittle and dismiss someone's point without addressing it: a power unique to leftism and possessed by no human who has not fallen prey to left-wing radicalism. Sorry, I know I'm opening myself up to being dismissed out of hand by a ~tone argument~, but it's hard to restrain the sarcasm in the face of things so obviously wrong. Not inly is dismissiveness not unique to leftism, but explaining away any criticism and acting like a dick toward everyone who doesn't say the right magic words or have the right magic attributes has worked wonders for conservatives, actually. quote:But in the process, “the tone argument” came to be understood less as a complex piece of social machinery than an easily identifiable trope; it then became a badge that could be waved at will in any discussion to absolve one of responsibility for their words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Given how quickly this article has been spread around the web I think it is clear that it addresses something important. Obviously part of the appeal here is that it may tell certain people what they want to hear, but I also think it's pretty clear that people really do feel, wrongly or rightly, that this article is relevant to their lived experiences. As such I think it's important for serious leftists to read this article in a thoughtful and careful manner. This is exactly my impression. It's pretty hard to "de-radicalize" when you were never there to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
The left wing groups I've been involved with, particularly LBGT and feminist activists, have a terrible penchant for cannibalizing their own and tossing each other under the bus for stepping out of line in the most minor way. I've seen allies, who may simply be ignorant or naive about a particular topic, completely chased out of these circles for having the audacity to use the wrong word, or challenge the groupthink in any way. Heck, even if you identify as being undecided and are looking to solicit more information on a topic or issue, you risk being accused of being part of the 'other'. This is not unique to leftism, of course; some people just need a flag to wave, a team to root for, intellectualism be damned. I came to a point in my activism a few years ago where I decided, you know what, tone actually does matter. Surely it's inevitably in bad taste when tone arguments come from out-group members, and is usually an attempt to derail... But within group, deciding how we approach issues and present ourselves to the world at large? It absolutely matters. Personally, I had to decide what my goals were for activism; a platform to air my own righteous indignation, or a platform to effect social change for the better. I guess at some point along the line, I decided the latter was more important; I'd rather put aside my personal hurt feelings if it means gay kids stop getting bullied sooner rather than later, or women stop getting sexually assaulted in disproportionate numbers, and so on. Getting loud, emotional, and shouting down your opponents? That absolutely works when no one is listening to you. MLK couldn't have succeeded without Malcolm X, I believe- sometimes you have to make a lot of noise before people pay attention. But once you have the ear of the population, and are trying to convince the undecided and the fence sitters, the content of your message matters far more than the outrage behind it. There are studies in the field of persuasion that essentially confirm this; outrage/emotional appeals are tremendously important when no one is listening, content matters when they are. Now clearly I'm not suggesting we police or diminish the importance of individual experience and pain. But when you're acting as part of a group with a public face, it is absolutely important to consider these factors. You should alsobe mindful when people view you as representative of a larger group. Remember, often times you're more likely to convince spectators and fence sitters in an argument than your opponent, and if they are able to drown you in rhetoric such that you come off as an incoherent rage machine while they appear mature, calm, and collected... You've lost. Now I'm hardly infallible. My post history will prove I'm an ardent leftist and I often get frustrated and flippant with people. I'm human, I'm imperfect, and controlling my emotions is something I've had to work hard to do. It'll be a life long journey. But I believe pragmatism has its value, and again, if my moral outrage taking a back seat leads to better persuasion and bringing about social change quicker, that's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think this kid has a point that treating people who belong to marginalized groups as fonts of impeccable wisdom is flawed, but it's an overcorrection to the perception that those voices can be devalued or shouted down in discourse because of the very phenomena that they're seeking to combat. Overcorrection is probably the best way to describe the stuff the author talks about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ability to belittle and dismiss someone's point without addressing it: a power unique to leftism and possessed by no human who has not fallen prey to left-wing radicalism. Sorry, I know I'm opening myself up to being dismissed out of hand by a ~tone argument~, but it's hard to restrain the sarcasm in the face of things so obviously wrong. Not inly is dismissiveness not unique to leftism, but explaining away any criticism and acting like a dick toward everyone who doesn't say the right magic words or have the right magic attributes has worked wonders for conservatives, actually. I never claimed this is something that's unique to the left. Plenty of groups, especially the ones isolated from the mainstream, create elaborate hierarchies with infallible, idolized leaders or dogmas that can never be questioned. They are beyond the scope of this thread, though. This discussion is about an essay which describes the state of "radical left" and talks about the problem in context of this particular group. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Basically "tone argument" is a form of concern trolling when it's used to tell ignored people to shut up and play nice. But if it's not concern trolling it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. In other words, it's important to pay attention to who is mentioning tone and why, just like it makes a difference if (for example) someone brings up men whose sexual assault by women is not taken seriously whether or not the person bringing it up is in fact invested in the well-being of victims of sexual assault or are only pretending to care in order to try to diminish the voices of female victims of sexual assault. I would love the phrase "concern trolling" to enter academia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:I never claimed this is something that's unique to the left. Plenty of groups, especially the one isolated from the mainstream, create elaborate hierarchies with infallible, idolized leaders or dogmas that can never be questioned. They are beyond the scope of this thread, though. This discussion is about an essay which describes the state of "radical left" and talks about the problem in context of this particular group. You're presenting it as something isolated, when in reality it's part of the human condition and absolutely a very mainstream thing. It's also an essential power, because not all arguments are equally valid, nor are they all deserving of having equal time spent addressing them. Would you argue that it is wrong for a leftist group to belittle and dismiss the argument of a person who thinks the real target they should be attacking is observatories, which are actually mind-control antennas for relaying the orders of the lizardman rulers who oppress us via telepresence robots like Mitt Romney?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:She mentions Otherkin for one paragraph and it's to say effectively "just because someone says they're oppressed doesn't mean you need to take their word as God". Yeah, but that's what I meant by the author not really saying anything. That's a very 'no duh' position to make. We all weren't born yesterday nor are we beep-boop robots. Most people can understand on a societal level that women, darker skinned people, mentally ill people, etc. get readily poo poo on by society. My skin is white and im a dude, and I can talk about how black people regularly get hosed by the police and women are sexually harassed on the street. I've personally been stopped by cops for no good reason and catcalled on the street as well. But I cannot know the terror and dread of a black person who is thinking "Oh poo poo, this is it, im gonna die or go to prison and have my life ruined. Oh man, c'mon stay calm. No sudden movements and maybe I'll live". I cannot know the vulnerability and anxiety of a woman who is thinking "Oh poo poo did I make eye contact? Oh god please, dont follow me. Oh no is he following me? poo poo poo poo poo poo, this is it, this is my rape. Im gonna get raped. Why did I look at him?" People get kinda mad when you attempt to speak for them as if you completely understand what their lives are like, especially if they know you can't really understand. They also tend to get more frustrated on top of that when you tell them to watch their tone when they criticize you for fronting. Kristov fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:Basically "tone argument" is a form of concern trolling when it's used to tell ignored people to shut up and play nice. But if it's not concern trolling it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I can promise you that academics in rhetoric are aware of the term. The problem with "concern trolling" as a concept or rhetorical position is that it's falsification-resistant (that's how I'd put it, the rhetoricians would have their own term). Basically, it's not really possible to refute a concern trolling accusation, because it's entirely intention-based. Kristov posted:I cannot know I fundamentally disagree. A standpoint epistemic framing, especially a categorical one, and especially one that's constructed strictly along racial or gender lines, does a tremendous disservice to the shared experience and humanity of those in a civic discourse. The "You cannot know" framing is precisely what creates the problems that the rest of the thread has discussed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I can promise you that academics in rhetoric are aware of the term. The problem with "concern trolling" as a concept or rhetorical position is that it's falsification-resistant (that's how I'd put it, the rhetoricians would have their own term). Basically, it's not really possible to refute a concern trolling accusation, because it's entirely intention-based. It's not supposed to be something you can get out of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You're presenting it as something isolated, when in reality it's part of the human condition and absolutely a very mainstream thing. It's also an essential power, because not all arguments are equally valid, nor are they all deserving of having equal time spent addressing them. Would you argue that it is wrong for a leftist group to belittle and dismiss the argument of a person who thinks the real target they should be attacking is observatories, which are actually mind-control antennas for relaying the orders of the lizardman rulers who oppress us via telepresence robots like Mitt Romney? You don't need to invoke the tone argument against someone, who simply spouts nonsense - it's not even applicable in this situation. Theoretically, it should only be used against someone that tries to shut down a discussion and dismiss entirely valid arguments by arguing about the tone. Usually it's personal outrage - "I won't discuss with you until you're nicer and more composed", or in the name of a broader group - "Maybe you're right, but no one will want to hear you until you're nicer and more composed." There are many cases where tone argument shouldn't ever be used, but I saw it being applied anyway. For example, when methods of reaching the people are actually the main topic of discussion, then the tone of speaking to the public is a valid concern. Also, the definition assumes that your opponent actually acts in ill faith and tries to find a reason to be indignant. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore someone's complaints after flipping the gently caress out and insulting them into their face. You cannot purposely anger someone and then claim victory when they lose their composition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Basically, it's not really possible to refute a concern trolling accusation, because it's entirely intention-based. Acting in bad faith is a concept that is discussed in court. Concern trolling is just one form of being a bad faith actor. I agree it's difficult to refute such an accusation online, but in a real-world context (especially politics) a person's (politician or pundit's) background can usually give you a very good idea as to whether or not the person truly cares about (topic du jour).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
Replace "I cannot know" with I cannot feel" then. Feel is probably a more accurate word to use if you take those 3 words out of the context of knowing what a very specific flavor of terror, dread, vulnerability, or anxiety feels like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:Acting in bad faith is a concept that is discussed in court. Concern trolling is just one form of being a bad faith actor. I agree it's difficult to refute such an accusation online, but in a real-world context (especially politics) a person's (politician or pundit's) background can usually give you a very good idea as to whether or not the person truly cares about (topic du jour). Concern trolling is almost never actually a relevant point (see: Why do you guys care so much about police murdering people but you don't riot over black on black crime?) so you often don't even need to care about intention. Keeping discussions on-topic would both help keep away the concern trolls and also serve to get rid of many of the worse vices of left radical "discussions" that are really just indignation matches and emotional conflicts without any grounding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Activism leaving the halls of political philosophy and being taken up by the common people is a good thing, though. You shouldn't need to know who Foucault was or what queer theory is in order to push for equality for gay people, and I'd argue that elitism like that is far more appropriate for the "circular firing squad" than popular sentiments traveling across widely-used social communication platforms without philosophical essays attached. Your missing my point. The historical hallmark of leftist thinking is the consideration of opression towards groups rather than just individuals and how the power dynamics build into a broad system that reinforces the power of the elites (be they rich/men/government/whatever). This doesn't mean people have to finish a PhD in post-structural colonial theory. Revolutions have happened around the world amongst groups of people with barely the education to write their own name, but still understanding that they, as a group are getting hosed. I'm saying that people , by trying to centralize privelege theory without realising that it talks about *classes* of people rather than just individuals , it turns from a powerful analytical shorthand into generating the whole mess of victim/opressor subjectivities that are plaguing the tumblr left right now. And thats no good. Yes it sucks someone has to put up with the trauma of being an opressed ware-otter with transjapanese headmates. But nothing gets solved until we ask the bigger picture of why power attaches so firmly to these delineations and what its affect on society as a whole is, or at least the group of people who collectively suffer as ware-otters, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:around. OWS is a good example, it tried to be all things to all people failed. It had a phobia of any kind of bureaucratic procedures or organization and as a result ended up being a joke. I'm not even sure united fronts can really work in such an environment, without some kind of core to build on. Like this right here: I think that the deeper problem here might be that for a theory to be helpful it needs to address the needs or concerns of of some constituency. If we think of classical liberalism, it spoke directly to the needs of a rising bourgeoisie who needed to tame the absolute monarchs of the feudal era. Or if we think of Marxism, we can see how it emerges directly from the struggles of the labour movement. Marx's theories weren't abstract formulations developed on a university campus, they were specific responses to the challenges of the movement that he was a part of. So perhaps the real problem here is that the left used to have labour as its central constituency, and that tended to produce structuralist theories like Marxism. Since the 1960s, though, the focus of the left has been the university campus, which means the dominant paradigm becomes post-structuralist. Unfortunately post-structuralism is probably more useful for getting into a tenure track position than it is for overturning the class relations of society. So that is sort of the paradoxical situation we're stuck in. I don't think the university campus is a particularly appropriate place to develop a new leftist programme or movement because the concerns of academic life can often be pretty removed from the concerns of life outside the academy. On the other hand the left cannot just will a new constituency into existence. We're sorta stuck with the troops we currently have, and that means that while its easy to recognize how a fixation on universities and their students and faculty is probably a dead end it's also a big challenging to conceptualize how we escape that trap. I think that bringing labour back into focus as a leftist issue is crucial but how you do that in practice is a really complex question, and if anyone else has thoughts on the topic please share them. Fargo Fukes posted:I think it's interesting that whilst celebrating the victories this woman helped achieve, you still can't resist taking a few swipes at her for being successful. Yes the left is capable of improving peoples lives, no it never will whilst everyone is squabbling over identity politics. She helped fight against increasing tuition fees, an actual concrete cause she could effect at the time, but this still reflects her privilege because only rich white people get to complain about tuition fees. Now she has her engineering degree (is this actually true or have goons made this up because she talks about paying attention to systems in the final paragraphs?) she's basically the enemy. She didn't change her political views, her situation changed so now she's not one of you. A competent movement might communicate that someone at a different point in their life that can help in a different way, or contribute to a push more closely connected to them, but the left is so wrapped up in who's more oppressed that there is no way to join without miring yourself in what an awful, rotten, privileged monster you are. Why do you feel that I'm attacking her for her success? Where do you see me suggesting that "only rich white people get to complain about tuition fees" or that it's bad that she successfully completed her degree? Honestly it feels like you're not reading what I said very carefully and are instead just projecting the things you're assuming I think onto a post in which none of those arguments are actually present. If you could maybe elaborate on why you think I'm saying those things then perhaps in the future I can make my position clearer and avoid this kind of misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Yeah, but that's what I meant by the author not really saying anything. That's a very 'no duh' position to make. We all weren't born yesterday nor are we beep-boop robots. Most people can understand on a societal level that women, darker skinned people, mentally ill people, etc. get readily poo poo on by society. Did you misread my post? My point (and the one advocated in the article) is that a random person of a given group is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of how the group as a whole experiences society. Basically this: duck monster posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Privilege theory and intersectionality are amazing, there are no problems. People just can't handle them. This is right up there with "the operation was a success but the patient died from it" or "we had to destroy the village to save it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Marxism and liberalism and feminism and anti-racism all were formulated academically/intellectually, however.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:06
|
|