9
votes
Meet the anti-woke left: ‘Dirtbag’ leftists Amber A’Lee Frost and Anna Khachiyan on populism, feminism and cancel culture
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Meet the anti-woke left
- Word count
- 2115 words
This article has a few valid points but to me their explanations in the article and little quips like polyamory, pansexuality and nerd culture being synonymous to loving games and rules seem really sophomoric to me; it sorta reads like a 20 year old college student who feels they have it all figured out and now looks down on people who fit mainstream narratives except here mainstream is pc culture and women's rights...
It's the standard "everything is a reaction to something else" syndrome. A bunch of annoying people in Portland who happen to be Poly post about how being monogamous is dumb and now we have the "dirt bag left" here to defend us from attacks on monogamy.
Same with idpol being taken too far at expense of actually helping vulnerable people. Now people declare "idpol is the enemy and never did anything good".
It sometimes seems like every political opinion nowadays is a knee jerk reaction to something else.
Some of these Marxists would 100% be hyper-conservative Republicans if they grew up in the South. The only reason they’re “leftist” is because they’re in Brooklyn, but the hate all the same people as the MAGA bunch.
Amber grew up in rural Indiana in a religious household
Do you really think they're looking down on being PC and women's rights? I think you're being deliberately hyperbolic. They're criticizing the methods, not the ideas.
It's fun, though, and that's what matters—they're constructed/fake issues (pansexuality is bisexuality for people with a persecution complex, polyamory is southern degeneracy culture co-opted by leftists and Bayesian racists), so making fun of them and insulting the people who push them is a good thing to do.
What? Who is out there saying they are being persecuted in a way that they wouldn't be if they were just bi?
The difference between pan and bi isn't exactly set in stone, but the one I've seen most is whether or not gender has any role in your attraction: pan - gender doesn't matter at all, bi - attracted to all genders, but gender still plays a role.
Other possible distinctions are about whether you are attracted to nb/genderqueer, or even if you are attracted to trans people. But both of those (distinctions for pan vs bi) are generally rejected by bi people.
this is an interesting article, although to be perfectly frank with you, amber and anna have a bunch of bad takes takes interspersed throughout here that probably range from merely groanworthy to actively painful to read, depending on where you stand politically.
I'll say!
Who is against women having traditional relationships, again?
You weren't kidding. This article seems to have been written by interviewing an intersection of GenderCritical and some of the more overtly traditionalist/reactionary subs.
The exercise of bodily autonomy is called "a very elite phenomenon" - and, on the face of it, I might agree, because removing one's uterus unfortunately requires a lot of resources - but they talk about it in a very dismissive manner, and go on to put it - together with being pan (???), poly, and #MeToo (???) - under the umbrella of "they just don't want to take responsibility".
The "you should be able to say whatever you want" - until it spills to physical violence - and the "antifa are fake, they don't know what oppression is" just smacks of /r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM. They call out the tankies as they "probably don’t like anything about socialism except the gulags", but they don't seem much better - class seems to be the only thing that matters to them, and they just dismiss every other issue.
Modern feminism? It's all about "middle-class women" and "mansplaining", apparently. And is that "wanting a boyfriend is considered reactionary one" a jab at how "the LGBTQWERTY+ movement has gone to far"? Because it really, really looks like one. The "you can tell people I'm trans, even if I'm not, it'd be fun" at the beginning isn't helping, either.
If they are representative of that, then - thanks, but no, thanks.
The disease Dunham suffers from that necessitated this is called endometriosis. It's a condition that many women suffer from with symptoms ranging from super heavy menstrual pains to debilitating growth of cysts, internal scar tissue, fatigue, etc.
Endometriosis is often diagnosed very late because it is dismissed (by doctors and others) as normal menstrual issues that women shouldn't whine about.
Not good.
I wrote up a few paragraphs about how calling out 'mansplaining' is only worthwhile if it turns into an additional call for equal pay.
But the little part about antifa? Good grief! I'm all for focusing on class and economics but without shitting on other leftist's ideas about identity and anti-fascism. They're part of the problem of infighting amongst the left.
Fuck that noise. Why can't we just stick to prefigurative poltics and build a better future now instead of shitting on other people's views? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefigurative_politics
Mansplaining not being as bad of a problem as income inequality - which leads to things like unequal access to healthcare, to birth control, abortion, hormone therapy, education and more, which is a problem which propagates through generations - is probably something we can all agree on.
But even if it's "just" being talked down, even if it "just" stems from shitty attitudes, it's still a problem - a symptom, maybe, but even if you are working towards eradicating the disease you can't just ignore its symptoms - and it should not be brushed away like that.
It should very much not be used to wave away feminism as a whole, and that's what they are doing there. It could maybe work as criticism of the lack of intersectionality in modern feminism - and I'd have to ask about what they are referring to - but they aren't giving a fuck about intersectionality, they are far more concerned with "heterosexuality being under attack" or some such.
And the more I read this, the more irritated I get.
"I'm not trans, but you can call me that for fun" is... at best, impressively tone deaf. Being outed can still destroy your life, coming out can still get you kicked out or attacked, and yet - here she is. Joking about it.
Is it their job to joke about things?
Maybe so. It doesn't particularly matter, because humour is a form of communication, and because what they choose to joke about, and how they go about it, is telling. Together with the rest of the interview, it is telling me everything I need to know about them - "numbnuts ahead".
I think you're kind of getting to the bottom of why I find these people so irritating. All of their arguments seem to be arguing for the older status quo. It's like they're choosing to label themselves as progressive in spite of having some very obviously conservative viewpoints.
Agreed.
I really don't understand your objections, they seem nitpicky and are ignoring the larger point. I'm what an American would call a left of left leftist, and I am very annoyed with identity politics. I think it does more harm than good, so much so that I occasionally consider the possibility that it's encouraged by the elite/upper class to keep the masses divided and distracted. That's how bad I think it is. Why is it associated with the left in the first place? Why can't it exist separately from economic issues?
The excerpts you quoted, particularly the bolded sentences, speak to me. I very much agree with the "dirtbags" (I wish they didn't run with that label). They make valid points, and push back against the actions of fundamentalist humanists, people that appear to take their feelings/emotions as the ultimate truth in the universe, people who make themselves as niche/unique as possible to maximize their victim-hood. Everyone is too busy superficially addressing injustices and focusing on what divides us instead of uniting.
I'd just like to say, before anyone grabs their pitchfork, that the concerns of what I call fundamentalist humanists (fundamental humanists? humanist fundamentalists?) shouldn't be ignored. They fight for just causes and bring attention to severe injustices. However, it seems like their methods/views are often not allowed to be questioned, which leads to division and the inability to adequately address their concerns on a larger scale. If we can all unite, which is not a trivial task, we'll be able to address the underlying causes of multiple injustices simultaneously. So maybe listen to what the "dirtbags" -sigh- have to say, they may represent more people than you think.
Superficiality, ironically, is the biggest problem with these figures and the kind of politics they preach.
Let's take identity politics as an example; the reason why people generally tend to think it's a problem is because they think that it's used to create divisions among people. But that's not really the case. Identity politics is used to bring attention to the injustices of minority groups so as to right those injustices. Identity politics is a natural part of any political system - people will tend to form parties with like people, after all. This has been a great force of good. To use the US as an example, it has given us benefits such as legalized gay marriage, giving women the right to vote and own property, and outlawing slavery.
And this is why I say "thanks, but no thanks". I'm not ignoring the larger point. I believe the details - what you say I'm nitpicking at - are important, too. I don't really have the luxury of ignoring the details, after all.
It can. It doesn't - not in the US, and often not in Europe, where the conservatives march on "we don't want more migrants, we want more jobs, we want more c a s t i r o n m a n h o l e c o v e r s" and wave the concerns of minorities away with "there are more pressing concerns [than your rights, or tackling your discrimination]".
But tell me to my face that "identity politics" - which apparently includes my existence - is something that the Powers That Be brought into this world to divide us, and I'll just laugh in your face.
Which I addressed. But their valid points are buried under a ton of shit takes. Their valid points are about as useful as the red pill, or Jordan Peterson - going to the gym and cleaning your room are good ideas, but they come with baggage.
"Making themselves unique to maximize their victimhood" is laughable. If you think that pan people are "doing it for the attention", or that trans people "want to be as unique as possible", then... you are not thinking.
I also addressed this - both in this thread, and a few months ago.
Yes. They are busy addressing injustices.
Yes. These injustices are just the symptom of larger issues.
And it's irrelevant, because you can't just ignore the symptoms while treating your patient. Even if you have a therapy that is guaranteed to work - even if you have a plan that could bring down all inequality in a fell swoop - you need to keep the patient alive until it does its job.
You need to treat the symptoms, and you can't write that off. And you especially can't write that off as "instead of" - you are not dealing with just one person. You are dealing with a mass of people, which are not united in the first place, which are working towards multiple goals. Those goals include "make life bearable, now", and how they need to go about it is different for different groups. That's not unimportant, or superficial.
i like to put it like this: socialism or communism or whatever else is not a magical reset button on everything that magically makes everybody equal and undoes all of the historical injustices and factors which contribute to unequal outcomes just because you implement it. if we poof socialism into existence in america tomorrow, certain people will still be disadvantaged across the board because the very nature of many aspects of our society have been intentionally or unintentionally stacked against them or constructed in a way that locks them out, and making socialism a thing doesn't address those unto itself. the reason you have to address injustices is not because we need to engage in identity politics or whatever: it's because the injustices of the past often contribute to the outcomes of the future, and ignoring those injustices only ensures that the consequences of such injustices continue to impact the peoples who suffered them.
I have to agree with one thing: the American left wing are entirely out of touch with their own supporters and don't understand why they lost the 2016 election.
They blame Russia and the rise of white nationalism when it's more-so a bad electoral campaign that brought cringeworthy attempts to pander to the millennial crowd like this, this, this, this and pretty much anything else from the treasure trove of Hillary posts you'd find on the r/fellowkids subreddit.
In fact, Clinton's cringey attempts to be a memelord were so bad that it made Mike Diva's parody video of her far more of an attack on her campaign than the 'Japanese commercial' parody he did on Trump, where the only negative portrayal of him was a split second clip of him doing a Nazi salute in front of an 80s cyberpunk swastika.
2016 was Hillary's election to lose and she lost it in spectacular fashion.
And I haven't even gone into the Clinton email leaks (occurring mainly out of bad security practices) which exposed corruption within the DNC and showed just how heavily screwed over Bernie was despite being the more popular candidate. That's the thing. The Democrats chose to field a less popular candidate due to their own internal politics rather than let Bernie lead.
The guy behind Charisma on Command did a very good video explaining why he thought Donald Trump was going to be the next POTUS to the point where he put a $2000 bet of his own money on it. He made some very good points on why Trump's electoral campaign was actually a stroke of genius, including how he used 'linguistic killshots' to take down rivals one at a time in the primaries, and how he became such a threat that he convinced Hillary to run campaigns against him that gave him even more attention.
To be fair, Clinton lost the election by negative 3 million votes and there is compelling evidence of interference in North Carolina, possibly even actually changing votes. The NC GOP has a history of electoral disenfranchisement and outright fraud and it isn't a huge leap of faith to think they'd allow Russia to hack their system and ensure a Trump victory. IMO we probably won't find out the whole story for another few years.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes, but Trump won the electoral college by a much wider margin of 77 votes. North Carolina would have only accounted for 15 of the 304 electoral college votes he won.
Yeah, but the EC really came down to, what 80k votes in 4 counties in 3 states? It's not the kind of convincing, sweeping victory that you're trying to paint it as. The only reason it's a 77 point margin is because so many states are winner take all. It's a quirk of an antiquated system that has given us the two worst presidents in modern history.
The effects of voter suppression are why Trump won, though Clinton was certainly not a great candidate and made plenty of errors of her own.
if we go down this road, though, you absolutely have to include wisconsin, where the GOP has a third-world understanding of democracy and has repeatedly sought to disenfranchise voters who would pose a threat to their majorities by gerrymandering and making it harder for minorities and democratic voters to vote, which gets us down to 25 electoral votes hanging. florida, a place which had that whole subplot about people trying to hack into electoral databases and clinton's emails switching hands with some dude loosely tied to the trump administration, would probably also be included, which makes 52 electoral votes and because subtracting from one necessarily swings it to the other in a presidential election, we're down to 252 for trump, 286 for clinton. now, is this at all likely? not really, and if you assume it is there are about 18 other things which probably had more impact as i've written about at length but it's not like you can't make a case of interference both domestic and foreign that combines to swing trump the election--it's just not a great explanation (or all that provable) when there are simpler ones like clinton ignoring the midwest, coming into the election only advantaged because of trump, or the comey letter fucking her.
Lol of course that's a huge leap of faith
Maybe you can expand on that and do better than a snarky, substanceless one sentence reply?
nate silver has a relatively compelling argument for why this was never actually the case and how, because of donald's status as the nominee for the republicans, the media largely glossed over many of the things which were subtly against clinton from the outset like the economy and her running for what would be a third (and later, presumably fourth) consecutive democratic term as president, even though in 2012 they had covered those things quite extensively.
broadly, it wasn't genuinely bad--but it also wasn't good for voters, either, and since the economy tends to be an animating issue for people that somewhat worked against clinton, especially since she was trying to win a third consecutive democratic term after an obama margin that was relatively close. from the 538 article at the beginning of the cycle in 2015:
this did not change very much throughout 2015 or 2016, and the quarter before the election growth was 1.4%. as a sorta demonstration of how the economy issue shook out (and some other stuff, like backlash to the current economic order and certain types of voters trump appealed to and won over better than clinton) trump also won bigger margins in places where the economy was worse.
Emplemon did a pretty good video on trump IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Y-P0v2Hh0