4 ms·
He seems to be taking jabs at "liberals" in quite a few of his other posts, so this doesn't sound too far fetched.
by cinntaile 3y ago
He seems to be taking jabs at "liberals" in quite a few of his other posts, so this doesn't sound too far fetched.
- projektfu 3y agoFor reference, he seems to be firing from the far left at centrist liberals and identity politics afficionados.
- lelanthran 3y ago> For reference, he seems to be firing from the far left at centrist liberals and identity politics afficionados. I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Aren't the identity politics afficionados the far left themselves? No centrist liberals preaches identity politics, almost by definition alone.
- c_crank 3y agoIt depends on if you think Marx or Eliezer Risco has a monopoly on being the furthest left.
- projektfu 3y agoGlancing through his work, he suggests that identity politics is anti-collective because it's focused on the individual and not the group. I can't speak more to that, I just was interested in what the underlying politics were from the above comment, because derision towards "liberals" is usually a right wing position, but obviously there are many leftists who have beef with some definition of liberals. They can all agree to hate the Atlantic and the NYT perhaps.
- mrguyorama 3y agoNobody hates american democrats more than actual leftists.
- zeroCalories 3y agoThis is a growing sentiment in certain "left" spaces. While I think there is something to be said for silly woke stuff, I strongly dislike this crowd. They're the type throw out slurs for no other reason than to be provocative and subversive. Reminds me a lot of alt right people.
- nkjnlknlk 3y agoIs this crowd an online crowd or a real one? I can't think of a single leftist who is against identity politics but pro-slurs.
- shrimp_emoji 3y agoWhere are our fellow Cum Town fans
- kelipso 3y agoDirtbag left has been around since what, 2015? It's kind of quieted down now but it's well known if you're in leftist circles.
- WorldMaker 3y agoOne complicating factor in the vocabulary is how many leftists I've found use "liberals" as a shorthand for "neoliberals" and "neoliberalism" which today are mostly associated with the American right wing. (It's the label for a lot of "free market Capitalism" ideas of the last century or so, generally post-WW2. The "liberal" meaning "free" as in "free market". "Liberal" is partly the shorthand because it does seem silly to label something from WW2 as "neo"/"new".) In that usage of "liberals" it becomes a derision of "liberal Capitalism" in general and the American right wing in specific. (Basically "fiscally liberal" as opposed to something like "socially liberal", which a lot of the left prefers to use terms more like "progressivism", to distinguish. That "fiscally liberal" means basically the same thing today that the right often means by "fiscally conservative", because neoliberalism has been the mostly unchecked status quo since at least the Reagan administration, is its own lovely fractal in why language can be so hard.) Left/right, liberal/conservative, these axes were often over-simplifying to begin with, and adding in centuries of debates between them doesn't help make the vocabulary any clearer.
- Izkata 3y ago> Glancing through his work, he suggests that identity politics is anti-collective because it's focused on the individual and not the group. Which could explain why it's coming across as confusing: identity politics ignores individuality and defines people in terms of their groups. It's pro-collective, not anti.