Internal power dynamics among socialists

I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion here but I think that many identitarians have decent points and there is a need to combat racism and sexism in society.

That doesn't excuse the wreckers though of course

we are not against fighting racism and sexism. We are against this identity and privilege hysteria.

Attached: IMG_20190203_220227.png (720x1176, 544.94K)

The problem is that identarians don't understand that racism & sexism are caused by capitalism, so fighting culture won't work because they're targetting the wrong objective. Gotta treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Attached: Differences between movements.jpg (1500x3400, 1.27M)

Worst thing you can probably do in these scenarios is get defensive. If someone attacks you for 'mansplaining,' you shouldn't argue against it. You'll only solidify your position of oppressive male shitlord. Defuse the matter by recognizing their complaint, nothing how this differs from how you perceived the situation, and displaying a readiness to not repeat the same error in the future (even if there was no real error). Get this over with as quickly as possible.

They do pay lip-service to this idea. You often hear them talk of "systemic" racism and sexism. It probably helps if you rephrase your position in these terms, reminding them of their commitments and giving them an entry-way into your thoughts.

So this is the power…of feminism…

So I should just surrender to them and have a struggle session for something I didn't even do? You realise that these people get high on power, right? Fuck off, you are an enabler of the vampire castle.

I understand what you are coming from but you are doing it wrong, avoiding conflict by "accepting" your role as an oppresive male only leaves you in good terms with them, it does nothing to change the image of the left, the current mainstream idpol in the left and it doesn't even try to introduce class to these people.

See. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're already calling it a "surrender." Defensive as fuck. Really it's nothing of the sort. Backing down is showing yourself to be the better person. If played well this is the clear impression it'll give to your comrades. You're an adult that knows to respect someone else's perspective even if they're ultimately wrong. Being a good Hegelian, you see how your different understandings fit into a single dialectical whole, and thereby both contain their own moments of truth. This is the ultimate point of the exercise. To show you know where the other person is coming from.

We're really dealing with a misunderstanding here, keep that in mind. They think you're a thoughtless male that doesn't care about the way women tend to be pushed aside during conversation. If you show that you are considerate on this the idea dissolves into air.

Just don't directly deny the validity of their experience. That's asking for trouble. Gently lead them to the right conclusions.

Two points:
1.) Try have this battle in a more neutral context.
2.) You aren't accepting your role as an oppressive male. If you accurately explain your perception of the situation, it will become clear that we're dealing with a misunderstanding. This will give the identitarians better insight into similar situations in the future, and thereby contribute to a slow change in leftist culture, one that I already see happening.

It doesn't even leave you in good terms with them, it accomplishes literally nothing. These people are unreasonable, you can not make concessions to ideologues, nothing satisfies their urge to dogmatically flex their ideology to the utmost extreme. You can utterly surrender to them and they will still find a way to despise you.

It's not really unpopular here to be a social libertarian, pretty much everyone is (infact the 'actually reactionary but economically liberal' memers are kinda wreckers of their own sort). We just don't like the bullshit victim culture that comes with it where white men are the enemy.

Attached: feminism female ceos clickhole.jpg (1080x1246, 654.59K)

I see your point, but this is easier said than done, although if you are able to select your words carefully it might be possible.

I think another solution is to just stop engaging that person and if they try and goad you, be honest and say you don't like them harrassing you/being a bully.

I wish there was some academic socialist work that talked about these vampires, but *not* an anti-idpol way, just a way of calling out bullies, which is what they basically are.

Actually, I've had a fair amount of experience with these types, and I find that the best way to deal with them is to apologize politely, promise to do better next time, and then forget that it happened and change nothing. If you can waste enough of their time with mealy-mouthed half-sorry's, then you can move into a better position to deal with them on neutral ground.

What does that word even mean (mansplaining) ?

It's a word that idpol retards use to shut down someone's opinion because they're male.

IIRC, term originated from a personal anectode of a female writer. She talked with some dude about a book she wrote, but the guy didn't know she was the one who wrote it and started to explain to her the book contents and author intents at lenght, assuming she didn't know a thing on the subject
Basically it means explaining something in a condescending/ patronizing or simplistic way to a woman because you assume your interlocutor to be ignorant /imcompetent on the subject because she's a woman.
It's being upset because you percieve in the interlocutor's tone and discourse an insult to your intelligence with the addition of an identitarian spook being offended.

Identity classics.

Attached: be4886bab838c790e7615244ff07d4001577fe25.jpg (1500x2000, 1.34M)

...

brainlet picture with a brainlet take

why? And what is it with Derrida and deconstruction of language?
Postmodernism hasn't any links to SJWs, feminists and idpolers? (Sorry I dont know much about pomo)

Idpozzed radlibs would never have read Derrida, they'd just see their peers using the word and absorb it into their vocabulary, along with some batshit idea of what it means - typically something along the lines of: "to break down a statement, piece of media etc into smaller parts and come up with some reason as to why it's super oppressive."

Would be tyrants look for places they can get power to abuse. Tolerating wokescolds/crybullies/outragists/oppression olympians will signal to more that here is a place where you can do that shit.

Also, a lot of these people have genuinely been through some bad shit like abuse and try to cope by seizing whatever power they can. For the ones like this who might be fixed, the only thing to do is set boundaries and not engage in conflict. Be nice to them but don't take any shit. They're after your credulity, so above all don't just listen and believe, because it reinforces the maladaptive behavior. Listen and support, but come to your own conclusions.

Think like Mr. Rogers - people should feel like a neighbor/comrade regardless of how right they are relative to each other. Reject the whole game outright. These are people who may never have known someone just being unconditionally kind or supportive. That's how competitive a mentality can get ingrained.

There was an interesting idea an user on here came up with for keeping idpol types out of leftist groups, by requiring a formal dress code.

that thread went well

That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

That's not only a terrible idea, wearing political uniforms is straight up illegal in many countries.

In my experience, trying to deal with these people or befriend them will do you no good because they'll always hate you and will always look for leverage to attack/smear you. Even if you apologise.

Just look what they did to FinnBol despite the guy genuinely apologising - they all went like sharks after him, quoted Stalin on sexual deviants (!!!) etc. But funnily enough, one of them (JuCheGuevara) turned out to be a white tennis player who creeps on teenage tennis girls and deleted his account immediately. Most of the wokecrowd who go on an on how all men are creeps, how all whites are settler-colonial oppressors, how you need to be a gay Navajo to be a revolutionary, etc. are often terrible people themselves, who have a toxic relationship to their own gender, ethnicity and sexuality. A lot of the standards they demand other people to treat them with they don't even remotely hold up for themselves.

A great indicator if somebody is one of these types is their use of buzzwords. For example, if they are trying to shit on anarchism or Trotskyism, they won't actually argue against the theories but just call it "fascist" or "racist". As if that's an argument. I know Bat'ko turned into quite an idiot but the people who are going for him are even bigger idiots - they just see le ebin frog picture and that he's an anarchist, so they call him a fascist, racist, Nazi, antisemite, and Bat'ko actually tried a dozen times to apologise to these people, which was a clear mistake: They will never forgive him, because he's a white Australian guy who took a stance against IdPol in the past and posted on problematic Zig Forums, so his flaw for them is his skin colour not his political opinions.

The only way to deal with these people is to ignore them and try to avoid contact with them whenever possible. Not just for the sake of your own nerves, but you don't wanna be associated with these people for publicity's sake either. To give an example, the only Marxist community at my uni has a bunch of SJW types in it, and my friends and family say they can't stand this org because they hate the few SJWs types in them. Nobody likes these people.

Idpol is a concept used to delegitimize opponents based on who they are rather than what they're saying while at the same time accusing the intended target of the idpol accusation of doing that very thing.
It's an attempt to force a politically incorrect political correctness where pointing to actual bigotry becomes thoughtcrime.
It's the actual divide and conquer mechanism, and in true form it calls out the target as a divide and conquer tactic to divert attention from itself.
It's no coincidence that you see whining about idpol far, far more often than callout culture within leftism in the current moment.

Bullshit. Just look how the few people and orgs who have taken a stance against IdPol are completely ostracized by the online leftist community. Nobody says you can't point out structural racism or sexism, or that you can't point out that there is sexism in society, but the people described here are people who want to use this as leverage against other people.

That's because there's no coherent stance against idpol, since it's a floating signifier as well as the reasons I already stated.
"Taking a stance against idpol" is literal virtue signaling.

So according to you Žižek and Mark Fisher were both just virtue signalling? What kind of clientele would you even want to reach out to? All the closet-racists supposedly hiding in leftist orgs?

Can you explain why IdPol in the past was used by literal COINTELPRO agents to D&C? Can you explain why ever mainstream SocDem who even faintly argues for class and not for IdPol (Sanders, Corbyn, Melenchon, Wagenknecht, etc.) is terminally smeared by the media, called Russian agents and antisemites?

Link on the COINTELPRO using identity politics before? i'm interested

The FBI infiltration of the FRSO relied on idpol. The idea being to use identity as a way to bolster credibility. Check this out: vice.com/en_us/article/4wqpvd/leah-lynn-plante-and-the-portland-anarchist-grand-jury-resistors

That being said, my view is that your socialism should be rooted in anti-oppression. Racism, sexual harassment, homophobia, etc. should not be tolerated. Any socialist group that would tolerate such things is a group I would never join: and "red-brown" stuff is a flat-out non-starter. The fash are your deadly and mortal enemies. But there's a kind of coddling of minorities on the left that is patronizing and destructive. There are also some minorities who will use their status to manipulate others into getting what they want with crocodile tears. This isn't to say that a minority using their status is automatically a federal agent or whatever but the feds have in fact done this.

Incidentally, I think if you're a white man and you interact with black people (say), there's this tendency to over-compensate so you can "relate." You really do not need to do this. Just stop. I like that scene in that Die Hard movie where Samuel L. Jackson – who is clearly this ex-Panther dude (he is in reality too) – says to Bruce Willis "'chill out!?' What the fuck, are you trying to relate to me!? Talk like a white man!"

You know: be yourself. You really can't expect everyone to "love" each other in this gooey way, where we merge into each other or something. Communism is not "love." I'm a white gay man from the Southern United States. I don't expect straight black guys to "understand" me or even really "accept" me. I barely understand them. I don't know anything. The most you can really insist upon is a minimum standard of mutual respect and a recognition that we're part of the same struggle, essentially, and we can find ways to look at each other's different struggles and find ways to see how those struggle relate. "Class essentialist" Marxism I don't think is the way to go, but treat individuals with the same minimum standard of mutual respect as you would anyone.

There's a Dave Chappelle joke (and he's not PC dude) where he gets lost in Mississippi and is freaking out, and stops in a Starbucks where there's a white gay guy working there. And Chappelle goes "whew, well if he's not worried then I'm not worried." Like Chappelle doesn't really "get" gay guys, and ribs on us from time to time, and we might be a little ridiculous to him, but again it's not really necessary for us to "get" each other if we can work to have each other's backs. That's easier said than done but I think that's the goal.

This 100 times.

Attached: zeus.jpg (450x198, 16.31K)

Erp. Wrong link. This one: vice.com/en_us/article/av4358/how-the-fbi-goes-after-activists

Did Leah snitch?

Don't do this. Letting assholes like this run around organizations turn a genuine Communist org into a Chucky Cheese Bizzaro world of Anarcho-( ) ism. These people need to be ruthlessly decimated from parties, and if they won't leave and no one will make them, the org is simply bad.
Why is it that if you pay woke lip service you get to stay in a leftist org? If some maga chud came in, there would be no hesitation to tell him to fuck off, but, oh, if he believes in the immortal science of incremental reformism and POC POV, fuck. I mean that guy might as well be a three headed beast carrying the heads of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.
The idea that you can ruin this Earth and further exploitation just because you tried to be 'woke af' is an extremely cynical take on leftism. That thought process is practically an indictment of all human action. Results don't matter, your aims don't matter, only your most abstract notions of being a "progressive" matter.
Why does trying to be "progressive" justify your existence as a progressive? Why is it even an idea that being a morally justified asshole actually justifies you being an asshole?

The idea that having the label of leftist actually makes you a leftist. The right have this too, they routinely fight each other over what is right and what is wrong. It just doesn't really register as much to us because we aren't them and they are all in opposition to us, so they all function the same to us.
But, for us, the insidious idea that declaring yourself a leftist justifies you in every sense of the word "you" is what allows this shit to continue. This lust for """inclusion""" I can guess is because leftism is weak right now and needs members. Probably also liberal propoganda that we are all worthy of being assholes simply by virtue of our own inability to actually affect anything.

I may hate southern accents and the word "y'all" but any irrational hatred toward a single person because of their percieved outgroup needs to go. In that way communism is more harmonious than the extant order. If we understand we have more in common because of what materially we face then society can finally make progress. It is okay for individuals to not like each other, but hating millions for no reason plays directly into the hands of the elite, no matter their race or nationality.

It's worse than you could imagine. He now bans and blocks people for support of explicitly anti-idpol parties, with the excuse of "support of sexism, racism and transphobia", and constantly apologizes for use of "hateful words". He even defended somebody who supported legalizing pedophillia and necrophillia, because they're female, and thus disagreeing with them is sexist. It's depressing to see him spiral further and further into the idpol cult.

Reminded me of this gem. He is also unable to take jokes about himself now, even tongue in cheek ones.
youtube.com/watch?v=I4CedSITFtc

what the fuck?

These things aren't even remotely related. It's a knee-jerk reaction of categorizing everybody who disagrees with your cult as a crypto-fascist. I mean, while sentiment against TERFs might at least be understandable in some cases (if you have transgender friends, etc.) he's also against "SWERFs" who he identifies with people who don't want women to have to prostitute themselves.

He was also defending a person who was a rapist. It's really not that surprising though - Muke has spoken out in favour of necrophilia too and said that being against dating underage is "kinkshaming".

So there are really pedophiles trying to be part of the LBGT movement? how big is this line of thinking? i'm completely alien to twitter in general.

Well on Twitter you have to types or "woke" guys: One that promote pure asceticism and LARPing as Sergey Nechayev, but inclusive to all kinds of non-binary and transgender types - these people will call every white man a creep, and if you do as much as making an even faintly sexual joke they will ostracize you and call you a pervert (these are mostly Twitter MLs).

The other woke crowd (mostly Twitter anarchists/Leftcoms) is the complete opposite and stages themselves as all kinds of sexual deviants, they are mostly all somewhat trans, post lolicon, sometimes nudes of themselves, call everything a spook, and while they not often openly promoting paedophilia they are set up to defend some really fucked up predatory behaviour because they perceive everything as "kinkshaming" or "NazBol". Muke and Bat'ko got involved with these people.

Needless to say, both these groups have a fucked up relationship with their own sexuality.

Pic related, I don't understand why people get so upset about it. I'd put it even lower than bestiality, as only one living participant is involved and the only one capable of being harmed is the necrophile. This is one of the few times where "spooks" unironically applies.

Depends on what you consider "pro-pedophilia". There are groups like NAMBLA that actually want to make it legal fuck kids; and then there are a growing number of individuals that want to society to stop hating on non-practicing pedos because no one can chose their sexuality, these are mainly loli/shotacon people who mainly just wanna jerk to fantasies and be left alone. Even in the furry community there's a major argument if websites should allow cub porn. But like with anything involving sex, there can be no nuance and the latter is folded into the former as "defending pedos".

Attached: gross but not in conflict.jpg (204x195, 14.45K)

Yeah, surprise surprise, both of them gravitate around Maria the Witch, who they clamour for the support of for some reason. It's retarded.

This has legitimately always been a thing, at least in the USA. In the 80s the US LGBT movement was highly accepting of child molesters, hence where the retarded claim "all gays are pedophiles" originates from, at least for the USA. As an example, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which had UN recognition, also advocated for the lowering of consent laws and supported NAMBLA.

Uh, the disgust of family and friends of the dead body being defiled, and the diseases which may spread as a result of necrophilia absolutely count as harm to others. It also is not worth the resources and labour in ensuring that there is a supply of clean, fresh bodies for 0.00001% of the mentally ill population, so disease continues to be a problem no matter how you look at it.

I don't have a problem with pedophiles, as in i don't lose my mind and want them dead as soon as i realize someone it's one, but i disagree with a few points. First, it being normalized at all. Second, engaging with your own pedophilia, even if it's just keeping it to yourself, i used to support the idea of jacking off to underage drawings because i had this thing of "it's better than them turning their infatuation to real children", but i also think instead of masturbating the first thing you should do once you realize you are a pedo it's go to a psychologist.

Necrophilia also sucks tbh

Not even wanting to defend pedophiles, but "go to a psychologist" isn't some magical panacea and it kinda irks me when people throw that sentence in people's face. Psychologists can't change people, they help them deal with stuff, but it's unlikely a psychologist will change someone's sexual preferences.

I know, i don't shit on pedos for specifically shutting in and embracing their philia but i think going to a psych it's the least you could try toward a different way to approach their preference. I say this as having jacked off to loli stuff myself, even if i do it i cringe so hard when people(who clearly do it too)joke about it online, not happy about it at all.

Tbh as someone who went to therapy (not for pedophiia, god beware) the biggest thing I got out of it is the self-realization and and clarity to get a professional outsiders perspective. My psychologist was a traditional old Freudian guy and he didn't prescribe me this is or that but just helped me talk about myself, analyse my own dreams, etc. which helped to figure out who I am. Relatives and people you love often have a distorted, biased image of you and are not capable of giving you a distant perspective.

In the end it's you who has to change himself bit a therapist can help you a lot with that.

All laws are bad, even age of consent laws.
Consent itself is a liberal concept that perpetuates the idea that our unfreedom is free merely because you can't function without clicking through the EULAs.
Consent is impossible without equality. Without equality, any agreement across classes can be considered coercive. No rich man ever gets jailed for being a pedophile, unless he does something else to undermine his class interests causing the other oligarchs to turn on him. The age of consent laws are only enforced on the proletariat, as an instrument of class oppression and as a smear. Adults shouldn't have sex with children. Laws do not prevent this, and instead incentivize it. If the FBI runs out of pedos to catch, it will create them to justify its own existence.

Maturity in regards to your own sexual autonomy is not a liberal concept, the legalism behind it is. That's like saying "puberty is a liberal concept".

Read the whole post, please.
Consent only exists as a legalism. Maturity doesn't come with age, but manipulation is real and it's largely a product of those same laws that give adults nearly unrestricted power compared to minors. Obviously, adults shouldn't have sex with small children, but I explicitly say that in my first post. The legalism doesn't prevent that, and in some ways incentivizes it (or the appearance of it).

Does anyone have any reading material on this matter?

This kind of gatekeeping will make us ineffective. We need to have as many people on our side as possible.
If that's what they're doing and they're consistently resisting any economic analysis, sure, throw them out.
Bullshit. You would have to engage with him, inquire into what drew him to your organization. Then try to educate.

There are undoubtedly people who would have sex with children who don't merely because it is illegal. People who are afraid of facing legal consequences and people who shape their morality based on legality, for example. In order for your point to be coherent, you have to be arguing that more people rape children because it's illegal than they would if it weren't illegal.

No, it's coherent because people still rape children in spite of the law, and the black market nature of child pornography actually increases its sticker price, literally incentivizing its production in proportion to the risk created by laws banning it. The negative feedback relationship between the law and the market is at work here too.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that false pretences of pedophilia can be used against social and political opponents, as they so often are, in order to keep the lights on at the FBI.

Spooks.
And we already have diseases being spread as a result of sex with already living people, guess we should outlaw sex.
I never claimed anything like this, only that it shouldn't be looked down upon for spooky reasons: when you start using emotion as a basis for what sis socially acceptable you lend legitimacy to Zig Forums and screaming "degenerate" at anything they don't like.

How do you know that it's fixable issue? This is no different than telling transexuals to just "go to a psychologist" or to take some pills. Some behaviors are not learned, they are simply fixed neural connections in the brain that will never be fixed without trying to do some sort of futuristic re-wiring operation. The whole point isn't "normalizing" pedophilia, but simply accepting that some people are sexually attracted to kids and there's nothing anyone can do about it, and as long as they don't commit a crime they should receive backlash from society for a mental state outside of their control.

Attached: a6584570c412abb5acedbe6a5a76cd232c891128260c779b9f7fb6a993c837b5.jpg (600x600, 65.1K)

Calling something a spook is self defeating. If morality doesn't matter, there's no reason why anybody should abstain from killing necrophiliacs on mass.

But by increasing the sticker price and introducing risk it also dis-incentivizes consumption. You can't just look at one feedback loop and ignore the other.

Whether children are raped or not despite the law is irrelevant. The question is if the amount of rape goes up or down when it is made illegal, and I think it's trivial to argue that the amount goes down.

Homosexual attraction, particularly male homosexual attraction, wasn't well separated from pederasty until relatively recently in the West. It wasn't that pedophiles were actively trying to ingratiate themselves with the LGB movement (prior to the T); rather, they were also originally part of the much larger group of marginalized sexualities that pre-existed the movement due to that long-time association. As the LGB/T movement became more professionalized and the constituency its major organizations spoke for became wealthier, the pederasts were marginalized and eventually ejected in an effort to gain mainstream political respectability.

What universe do you live in?

It's not trivial to argue the amount goes down. Illicit opiate consumption and distribution is very illegal, however consumption, distribution, and so on have gone up precisely because of the DEA.
You shouldn't give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. If it's so trivial to show that CP production and distribution have actually gone down due to the efforts of law enforcement and due to laws being passed, then demonstrate it with facts and figures. You can't, because they haven't. In fact, you can't produce the figures you need to demonstrate such because the law has driven them underground. This is precisely the preferable situation for law enforcement, since their eternal mission becomes unfalsifiable. No number you can produce will show that it is ineffective, and innocent people will keep going to jail, dope on the table will keep being produced, and capitalism will keep reproducing itself through the rape of children incentivized by being enshrined in a code whose justice is only blind to the actions of the operators of government and criticism of legalism.

Well I've explained the mechanisms that make this impossible, so I'm going to need you to debunk it and actually explain how legality makes consumption or distribution go UP. Because that seems really fucking retarded. Why would people rape MORE children because it's illegal? It's nonsensical.

Also, literally everywhere weed has been legalized there has been a corresponding increase in consumption, distribution, and production. How does your legal theory fit with that?

You haven't explained any mechanisms. You've merely stated that it's illegal therefore fewer people do it. In fact, the number of pedophiles doesn't change since you've passed a law. What has changed is the availability of product they will consume. That has become riskier to make, driving the price people are willing to sell it for up. Once that price reaches a certain point, desperate people who wouldn't otherwise produce child pornography start producing it merely because of the amount of money to be made doing so. Remember that the consumers haven't changed here, but now people produce it who otherwise wouldn't because of money to be made doing so. The actual exchange value og CP is driven up by the creation of the black market. This is an unavoidable consequence of prohibition in a market economy. Unlike opiates, where you can create new demand, CP has a relatively stable demand because the number of pedophiles should remain relatively stable within any population. The only thing that would drive up demand is creating artificial scarcity of the product they consume, which is exactly what happens during prohibition.

Show that the consumption, distribution, and production has increased. The only thing that has changed is that the market is now being taxed and production has shifted to America from imports. Legalization did not increase demand by any significant degree. One thing that did happen is that legalization of cannabis corresponded to a decrease in demand for opiates, or at least a decrease in observed opiate related hospitalizations and deaths, which is a good thing.

Again, you need to demonstrate, with facts, that prohibition has decreased the production and distribution of CP. Otherwise we have no reason to believe this is so, and in fact we can believe the opposite. Do you also believe that prohibiting prostitution reduces prostitution rates?

Claiming ownership of your corpse is not just absentee ownership but an eve more ridiculous version than private property because you're not just absent from the property but from existence. Being worried about how a corpse is treated is just spiritualism.

Look it up yourself dipshit, it's openly available information. Every state in the US that legalized has seen a corresponding growth in the marketplace. It turns out that when you can't be arrested for smoking weed, more people do it! Crazy, I know.

What is this false dilemma between 'getting defensive' and admitting guilt? Just calmly reject their bullshit and then carry on with the point you were trying to make.

You can't look up data that doesn't exist. How are you measuring pre-legalization black market cannabis usage? It's by definition clandestine.