/gulag/ - Meta

Meta Board. Where you belong

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

If you have questions or need answers you can contact the leftypol staff through matrix @ https://app.element.io/#/room/!RQxdjfGouwsFHwUzwL:matrix.org

(628.23 KB 1500x595 AnimalTownStoten.jpg)
(139.40 KB 749x1082 meisuruga.jpeg)
Idpol ban Comrade 07/30/2020 (Thu) 21:53:01 No. 6006
This is unworkable. Who defines idpol? Sorry but I've spent so much time trying to educate radlibs that idpol without class is fascist-adjacent shit, but we don't need to go to the other direction where we simply talk about class without anything else. The world doesn't work like that. Yes idpol is a social construction, but so are the """commonsense"" explanations as to why capitalism spread (this is literally in marx btw). What was wrong with having a thread about it? Are we seriously going to have a leftypol where talking about racism is banned on site, but we can have a e-celeb general? Come on, I thought this place was supposed to be better than that? Are we not allowed to discuss the New Afrikan Black Panthers anymore? Theodore Allen? Stuart Hall? B.R.Ambedkar? Fred Hampton? Something I've realised (and there was a thread by someone else about this recently) is that all the things we despise "idpol" for, the hysteria, the categorisation of victim/oppressor dynamics..these are already being talked about by the people in that mileu. If you want to ban bait threads from tourists fine, but that should already be covered in the rules, but all that's going to happen is that people having meaningful conversations about the intersection of race, gender and class in a capitalist society are going to be disciplined into second guessing themselves because they will wonder if their post will be banned. Say goodbye to any effort posting on that front. Not to mention that this will also encourage bad faith posters to try and shut down threads or posters they don't like by screaming "IDPOL" and mashing the report button. The current sticky in leftypol doesn't say anything clear. it just says "the mods will crackdown". That's not good enough. Be clear about what will and what won't be tolerated.
mods only care about aesthetic so just keep talking about idpol but put it in quotation marks and source it to "Marx in a letter to Engels" and you'll fool the current illiterate mod team
mods this is ridiculous. Clearly the board needs to have a discussion about this where people can see it
>>6009 Do we though? Just because we can discuss it and some people want to discuss it, does that mean we need to? Can we not exercise some self control? If there's such a need to discuss idpol, why not take the discussion to the places idpol is currently wrecking online and IRL instead of circlejerking here about our anti-idpol opinions?
>>6006 There are too many social conservative ""leftists"" who are """anti-idpol""" (but actually not). This includes every other idiot who thinks they have transgenderism "figured out" but don't know jack shit about the topic. This also includes that small minority of idiots who think that anti-idpol means that racism isn't relevant or doesn't exist. These and other similar ones are the loud voices of idpol. Anti-idpol voices are a small minority, I count myself as one of them. I've written tirelessly about the topic and still do, but I'm always in the minority of posters since effort posts take much more effort than writing some stupid take on the subject. I even compiled a long list of articles and effortposts to paste whenever the topic came up. But honestly the reactionaries and conservatives are just too much. As for the idpol thread, it was a terrible terrible thread of 2-3 incels debating endlessly in bad faith. Which leads to my next point, the biggest problem with idpol is not that the topic is "wrong" (it's an important topic and lots to discuss about), the biggest issue with idpol is that it attracts the worst type of people that post the most shitty takes, many times in bad faith. It ruins discussion. I think it's important to talk about what anti-idpol means, primarily to educate ourselves. I think it's an important part of being a leftist today, and understanding the nuances beyond "lmao it's all class, lol" takes some time and discussion. But talking about race, sexual orientation, or god forbid, transgenderism, that just seems impossible at this point. My 2c.
>>6037 Instead of taking the obvious and intelligent route of understanding class and identity intersects, the manchildren mods go full class reductionist
>>5811 also add Irish separatism.
Leftypol is incapable of discussing idpol in good faith and that is enough reason for a ban. Everyone who disagrees is either a newfag or a disingeniuos wrecker.
>>6039 Class can't "intersect" with identity like just another identity because it's a material relationship primarily rather than an ideological category that influences people to differentially treat each other within a class structure.
>>6037 There are plenty of subjects that can absolutely wreck an online community if they become too common a point of contention. Fortunately they tend to be relatively unimportant: things like age of consent, circumcision, and particular bourgeois incarnations of social justice. Basically anything that invites uncritical moralizing is poisonous to the sort of discourse that can be had on image boards. The nice thing is that for such unimportant subjects a well-functioning community can just say "yeah we're talking about Zoe Quinn and dick skin" and nothing of value will be lost. The complication is that idpol subjects can be important but are still invite the same moralizing, so independent of their worthiness of discussion they end up dragging down the quality of conversation here. I suppose ideally the mods themselves would have very well-considered and well-supported opinions on subjects such as racism and transgenderism, and would discriminate not on the matter of subject but on whether users are partaking in moralizing behavior and attempting to build consensus via memes and quips that flatter the dominant ideology. But never have I seen mods successfully do such a thing on an image board; maybe it requires too much labor and too dispassionate a moderating team.
>>6088 >"yeah we're talking about Zoe Quinn and dick skin" I accidentally a word: meant to be, "... we're not talking about ..."
>>6088 >Fortunately they tend to be relatively unimportant: circumcision You're right, the daily mutilation of thousands of children in the "West" is relatively unimportant. How can psychological scarring and life-long trauma of circumcision, which has shown to make people more aggressive, possibly be more than a passing curiosity?
>>6095 >which has shown to make people more aggressive * among other things
why the fuck are you faggots talking about FORESKIN in this fucking thread
>>6095 >You're right, the daily mutilation of thousands of children in the "West" is relatively unimportant. You took the bait retard. >>6097 I already gave the explanation: there are topics that invite useless moralizing and the continual relitagation of these topics rapidly effects a degradation of the discourse on forums such as image boards. There could be no better illustration of this than the fact that even mentioning such subject immediately resulted in moralizing pearl-clutching. The question remains: we can decide as a community, without very much cognitive dissonance, that we do not want to continually relitagate matters of age of consent, zoe quinn and dick skin. If you really want, there are other forums on the internet that deal with those issues on purely moral grounds and you can find for yourself many communities that concur on the matter that the age of consent is too high (or too low) or that circumcision is very heinous (or restricting it is heinous) and so on and so on. But this is mostly a leftist forum and we are mostly concerned with class antagonisms, the contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production, the abolition of private property, and so on. Surely aspects of identity, especially those having to do with race and gender, figure into these issues and one cannot understand these issues fully without accounting for such aspects. What is the policy of moderation that could allow for such discussions without the discourse degrading as we have seen happens immediately whenever dick skin is mentioned?
Anything type of humanities that janny don't like is idpol.
>>6088 >Fortunately they tend to be relatively unimportant Tbh some of them have pretty clear-cut (pun intended) answers and given how divisive they are and how easily they can be deployed (see this thread), it may be worth it to just work through the argument so we arrive at general consensus and anybody trying to use these topics to divide people just gets "yeah, we've been over this already so fuck off."
>>6145 We have been over these topics a hundred times or more. There is no consensus to be had.
>>6146 whereas there is a clear consensus on everything else is there?
>>6527 Those arguments are at least less circular and obviously trolling
Idpol is garbage postmodernist identarianism, it has no marxist basis and no place in any marxist movement and discussion space. Fuck off with your american bullshit already
>>6037 >social conservative ""leftists"" who are """anti-idpol""" (but actually not Oh piss off wit this shit. I'm so tired of hearing this assmad crap about "muh social conservatives" here
(299.59 KB 560x560 1458928177003.jpg)
>>8458 Stop complaining about degenerates then.
Also, we defined idpol in the manifesto. Go read it if you want to know what we think it is. Answered and anchored.
>>8471 social conservatives are degenerates tho
>>8490 Is that you, Adorno?
the idpol thread in /b/?
>>8471 Fuck off. You're being far too lax in letting bad-faith liberals argue nonsense and then shout-down critics as "social reactionaries" or other bullshit buzzphrases.
>>6095 im uncut and wouldnt trade my prepuce for a million dollars
>>8532 not a bullshit buzzphrase. if you can't understand gender, sexuality, or race as a dialectical then you're not a marxist just a joke
>>8544 They are bullshit buzzphrases. There is no dialectical reasoning behind "non-cis gender helicopter-kins" It's the kind of autism that wouldn't even pass Marx's, Lenin's, Engels', Stalin's or Castro's minds and is blatant attention whoring by people whose egos are alienated by capitalist aimlessness and who search for an identity in anything, even made up sexual rubbish.
(314.87 KB 1200x1110 laughing furwhores 2.jpg)
>>8582 >There is no dialectical reasoning behind "non-cis gender helicopter-kins" like pottery
leftypol (even in 8ch days 6 years ago) has always been a bit too liberal with calling shit idpol but a recent trend of labeling LGBT issues as 'bourgeois decadence' is both a regression in thought and without any real precedent. Aside from Paul Dickblast, I'm not aware of any popular Marxists who are so avowedly anti-lgbt.
>>8624 No argument furfag >>8654 >Muh Cockshott baaaad >It's REEEGRESSSSSION REEEEEEE Fuck off glownigger.


no cookies?