/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2888846
>why can women fall back on cheap idpol but men can't? a fair question logically, but a loser question practically. you wouldn't like any of the answers! so don't ask it - go cultivate something else.
The same thing applies to race. What you are implying is that white men are better creatures than non-whites and/or non-males, since they are expected to bear greater responsibility for criticism - I agree as to the inference, but still see the hypocrisy as infantilising. When (as you say) one forfeits individuality for a gendered or racial identity, they become a loser. Instead of accusing men of becoming potential losers, see that women and/or non-whites are currently losers, and so should aspire to be independent (e.g. enlightened), lest we get the rise of white male identity politics. There is no actual difference between a group of blacks or whites exclaiming "white/black lives matter" besides a loss of dignity on parts of the whites. So, we should expect non-whites and/or women to be dignified as individuals, and not for the "white man's burden" to reign indefinitely. Kant (1784):
<Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred [immaturity]. [Immaturity] is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. This [immatutity] is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! [dare to be wise] Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/enlightenment.htm

Forgot link:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/08/12/inyw-a12.html

>>2890775
The new climate denialism is climate acceptance. You see the stages of grief develop from an essential a priori capitalist apologia. It goes from "it's not happening" to "it's happening - and it's a good thing". We see this formula in all scoundrels. The "Narcissist's Prayer" (2016):
https://www.daynaemcraig.com/narcissistsprayer

Lads they're building a Mega Mosque

>>2891101
I don't think non-whites or women are losers. an underlying social assumption that they're lesser may be the roots of why identifying with their group doesn't come across as loser behaviour, but equally it may just be that they're not default - while "some white guy" is still in some sense the default. (you can even see this extended to something like fantasy games, where there's a moderate "lol really?" kind of attitude to picking to play "some white guy with a sword" in a world where you can be a transsexual half-dark-elf furry priest.)
a fun case here would be being American: in a world culturally colonised by Americans, being American is not in fact uncool, and cool Americans are undeniably still Americans, but being an unironic proud USA-USA-USA MAGA type is very uncool.

if I can have a confused metaphor: I think that a non-default identity imposes choices that a default one does not. for example in the UK, Englishness is the default. English people do not really have to ask "would I like my country to be independent of the united kingdom?", but people in every other constituent nation do. you can even see a similar dynamic where assimilation to the default/unionism is uncool, and accentuation of difference (independence movements) are cool. for the english, it is a lose-lose situation: unionism is unionism (loser), but independence also has something of the masturbatory wizardchan sort about it. (loser), the only winning moves are to accept the question doesn't come up (ironically, the default), or to defer to the minority group when it does. (annoying, but not inherently loser)

>>2891118
What you are describing is the universal and particular subject of society, which is contonuous of Beauvoir in "The Second Sex" (1949). Indeed, masculinity is universal (the pronoun "he" literally describes all of humanity). Whiteness in its code is also not simply dominant, but normative of what we may call civilisation. My resolve however is not to accept the disparity (as you appear to), but to invite the excluded into the fold. For this, I take the Whiggish stance of Daniel Defoe (1701):
<From hence I only infer, that an Englishman, of all men, ought not to despise foreigners as such, and I think the inference is just, since what they are to-day, we were yesterday, and to-morrow they will be like us. If foreigners misbehave in their several stations and employments, I have nothing to do with that; the laws are open to punish them equally with natives, and let them have no favour. […] A true-born Englishman's a contradiction, In speech an irony, in fact a fiction: A banter made to be a test of fools, Which those that use it justly ridicules; A metaphor intended to express, A man a-kin to all the universe.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/30159/30159-h/30159-h.htm
To me, there has never been a more radical statement on identity than this satire. What Defoe does is to situate the identity of Englishness as grounded in contradiction, in the same way that Hegel does (1816). It is not to deny Englishness, however, but to expand it to all people, hence foreigners "will be like us". The Englishman is an individualist in the same capacity, and the desire for his "free-born" rights has swept over the world. So, England (the commonwealth, not the crown) alone has the privilege of this, but as Defoe adds, only so long as the rule of law is upheld. I want people to be better - you accept them as being lesser.

Yanks have a point on this one.

>>2891133
I wouldn't say I accept them as being lesser, on the contrary I think the identity focus is actually a function of the collapsing of meaningful identity distinctions in the internet age. hence the only real identity distinction i put real emphasis on is being cool or uncool, with the relative position of any "real" identity much floatier and presentation-based. e.g. no level of non-default identity, even doubled and tripled up, could offset how uncool it is to be a TERF.
(though that's an odd case, because TERFism is itself non-default behaviour. a sort of third, substantially negative choice.)

I think everyone is basically capable of being in the fold (though that may lead to yet another new fold… coolness is precarious like that), what marks you as being in or out isn't your innate traits, but how you present yourself, which is a free choice. I think I've belaboured the points before that many englishmen are much more foreign to me than any foreigner, and that (tying back to the original thesis of what whiny white boys should do) one of the major divides in politics today is basically whether or not you embrace the concept of "self authorship" or not. (which then circles back to the cool/loser distinction… it's not so much what you are, as how you present it.)

>>2891162
As far as I see it, what is colloquially referred to as "cool/uncool" is a matter of "taste". Taste as a power of the tongue to Aristotle (t. De Anima) allows for discretion between subtleties like temperature and flavour, and so the tongue is unique in its relation to reason. To have "good taste" is to have good discernment or judgement, for example. Now, the tongue also extends to speech, which is divided between 3 things, (i) vocabulary, (ii) dialect, and (iii) language. We saw with the Norman Conquest that none of the nobility adopted English as a first language until the turn of the 15th century, and so exclusion was constituted upon this basis. Within each language is dialect, or accents. Accents code positions of class, nominally by territory. A "Northern" accent is a sign of being "working class", but even within the North there are distinctions between deeper regions, which all have different accents. Vocabulary is also colloquial and formal, according to use; a posh accent using slang is humourous because it presents a contradiction. Slang is equally regional, or particular, while universal vocabulary is formal. So then, in speech we see a decoding of class, according to particularity and universality. Other codes of class are etiquette and apparel. We actually saw the regulation of dress codes based in class discrimination in 14th century England, with various sumptuary laws. In each case, we see that "fashion" is never common, but always distinguished in its marginal status by the ruling classes. Once a fashion becomes customary, it loses its marginal status, and so new fashions must emerge. The protection of fashion is then a preoccupation of elitists. We see this well enough with "hipsters", who lose their interest in something once it gains popular appeal, and so move onto other "cult" consumptions. Conservative commentator Paul Joseph Watson once remarked that conservativism is the "new punk rock" on account of it's marginal status - this has its erotic element, in "taboo", which is also why perverts seek to protect the status of their fetish as forbidden, lest it become common, and so uninteresting. This is why I think "sunlight is the best disinfectant", since treating the forbidden openly denies its power. It is the politically correct censors who create the politically incorrect fetishists. From the cursory view I have presented, coolness (e.g. fashion), as a category of taste, is a code of elitism, and so is always exclusive. Once everyone is "cool", nobody is, and so I find status to be entirely vain. What is best is that, as independent subjects; as individuals, we exude personal authenticity, rather than be compelled by the conformity of fashion, since it is chasing something with diminishing returns. So, I would criticise the authority of status as something false, and propose truthfulness instead. "Be yourself".

>>2891162
>>2891223
I would say that this comedy sketch is a demonstration of fashionable ambition - the discipline of appeasement leads to an impossible task of maintaining so many demands for properness, that "cancellation" is the end of all efforts to purify oneself from the excluded. Loyalty adds no credit to the excommunicated, proving that it is impossible for such reputation to be ethical. If it's the case that cultists cannot be your real friends, then why even associate with such traitorous opportunists? We thus see that the "cool" people live in fear of judgement.