my point is that you can't assume that everyone who was (and is) anti idpol went on to be an epic tradcath.>>389635
I agree. On one hand, the anti idpoler stance was too easily accommodated into mainstream conservative rhetoric, looking at BLM for example, the "ALL lives matter not BLACK lives matter" type of argument which distracted from real examples of racial discrimination by arguing semantics. At the same time, the pro idpol side failed to associate these racial issues with economic causes, preferring to view racism as a cause rather than a symptom.
I remember idpolers at the time would argue that "over-policing" was responsible for black crime/murder rates, an argument that is
1. objectively untrue as homicides are LESS likely to be solved in black areas than white ones
2. distracts from the true economic causes of higher black crime rates by attempting to argue that they are not in fact higher
At the same time, anti-idpolers were, I think, too quick to discount the possibility of turning racially motivated movements such as BLM towards class-based ideals.
Ultimately, the problem is that objective truths are either cherrypicked or discounted by both factions, resulting in competing factions operating on a subset of available information.
It is entirely possible to acknowledge that black communities have problems with police brutality, that black people should be equal members in orgs, and that the working class should seize the means of production and create a raceless, classless socialist state, while still acknowledging the reality of current black crime rates, IQ, and the false consciousness spread by most black entertainment. Although in most cases it is unproductive to focus on these differences.