/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>808833
Dangerous as in more mass shooter trans? Cause that sounds great.
Dangerous as in just more depressing cultural sinkholes of moralism, concern trolling, and vindictive contradictions of capital? Not so good but also not really my or your problem

What even is woke? Because I could most easily argue how LGBT rights systemically screw over minorities and cis women time and time again. They know it too. So is it woke to point out the minority actually being oppressed or woke to go along with the current neolib talking point?

I don't think it'll ever be a reverse situation where race and afab will be used against lgbt because porn is just too profitable. The last thing the bourgeois wants is a unified and cohesive proletariat that has dignity and a longing for family and purpose over clout and eating hot chip out of a femboy's asshole. Notice that in itself how femboys are the top of the food chain.

Not bears
Not even lesbians
Because that most benefits the narrative of consumption and alienation.

Which will in turn lead to more violence because these are not healthy people. They can't be.

>>808859
>easily argue how LGBT rights systemically screw over minorities and cis women time and time again. They know it too. So is it woke to point out the minority actually being oppressed or woke to go along with the current neolib talking point?

The current acceptable form of woke is to deem cishet males as defective females and worship young women as angelic entities

>I don't think it'll ever be a reverse situation where race and afab will be used against lgbt because porn is just too profitable. The last thing the bourgeois wants is a unified and cohesive proletariat that has dignity and a longing for family and purpose over clout and eating hot chip out of a femboy's asshole. Notice that in itself how femboys are the top of the food chain

What’s up with this newfound hatred for femboys on this imageboard?
I mean seriously.

Also, alot of women are enthusiasts for LGBT porn to begin with.

>Not bears
>Not even lesbians
>Because that most benefits the narrative of consumption and alienation.

Word are you on about?

Are you that TERF sympathizer?

>>808833
>woke idpol is dangerous
More like just waste of time.

>>808859
>family and purpose

Kys

>>808833
>woke idpol
Ok Luftwaffen poster. How do you define that even? Lot of you here talk about id pol on the left and bemoan woke this and that but I hear no winging about right wing id pol ever. It's both right and wingnat id pol that gets us Trump, Neo-cons, Neo-libs, Pisssrael, Western Imperialism in general. When that actual fuck will any of you address the roots of how id pol influence the shit we're supposed to actually be against?

>>808926
Bruh there’s a lot of complaints about reactionary propaganda on here
Every complaint is about some alleged “subliminal reference” to justify racism, sexism, and pedophilia

>>808833
define understand
define woke
define idpol
define dangerous

>>808926
I'm not the luffyposter obviously, but allow me to attempt to define it:
>identity politics
<any political ideology or belief that is primarily concerned with the preservation or proliferation of a group's identity, in terms of cultural impact
Examples on the left include Feminism, African American conscious thought, and LGBTQIA. These groups and ways of thinking seek to instate rights for their disaffected members and rectify any negative consequences they may suffer as a direct result of the harsh history through which their forebears suffered. This includes discussions regarding maternity leave, the wage gap, reparations for descendants of transatlantic slaves and displaced Native Americans, and gay-lesbian-trans rights. Now, these are noble and socially progressive objectives to want to attain, but these organizations come into conflict with "radlib" thought because they are still trying to operate under the whims of a capitalist system, and want to exist within it, but with a "larger share of the pie" for their own kind. This 'misses the forest for the trees' as far as more radical Leftists are concerned, depending on who you ask, because the end goal for them is the uprooting of capitalism and seizing the means of production for the working class.

Examples of this on the right include appeal to puritanical traditional values and the nuclear family (i.e. religious values), as well as White supremacy and, more insidiously, class consciousness for the capitalist class that is stealthily packaged in with the other rhetoric they uphold. There's even stealth advocacy for Judaism, which seemingly doesn't make sense, given the aforementioned White supremacists would be in league with a pro-Israel political organization, only it does because Christianity and Judaism are cut from the same cloth and share a lot of the same religious values, and the rightoids in power are wholly convinced of the necessity of helping Israel as a country survive because it be God's will or whatever. So, the right-wing as a whole aren't entirely in agreement, but just enough to allow them to disaffect the socially progressive Left.

Yes, you may have caught that I have referred to class as an identity, and it is. If you're working class, that is as much an identity as being Black, a woman, gay, or any other identity one can assume. However, the difference is that CLASS SUPERSEDES THOSE OTHERS in that one's class determines his well being and quality of life in this world. If you're born into the ownership capitalist class, then you will have enough money to live any sort of life you can choose, no matter how degenerate or not, and hide it from the rest of the world, while also propping yourself up as a symbol of the sort of morality you'd like to sell to your political cohorts. In other words, since economy is the basis for society, he who controls it also controls discourse surrounding any given social element therein.

Thus, in order to address the idpol issues that uyghas be triflin' bout all the time, we must first seize control of the economy, the means of production, and revolutionize how feasible a working class life is for the majority of people in society. The rest will follow, because once the "playing field" is more "balanced" and economic equity is no longer a concern, then a lot of the ills that said idpol groups complain about will have been addressed.

Plus, I think it's safe to just assume that if you're on leftypol, then you already disregard the retarded idpol of the right; it doesn't even bear mentioning.

>>808941
"woke" is the most meaningless buzzword. So I purposefully over use it. I waiting for someone to call the sentence "I woke up this morning at 7" woke.

>>808945
So is “reactionary”

>>808942
There’s some overlap between woke and traditionalism

Believe it or not, Afro American schools of thought do look down on LGBTQ as white peoples introducing degeneracy to eliminate the black race.

And a lot of LGBTQ people express wanton for nuclear family and suburban living, showing disgust for the hookup culture and other excessively “bohemian” practices that they feel are pushed onto gender queer folk as sexual objectification.

Feminists also express distaste for trans women identity being pushed in the discourse

Woke is not always progressive without having reactionary sentiments

>>808942
this is a good summary of the anti-idpol view but i've come to believe such a view is facile and out of accord with the actual dynamics at play in "political" circles.

it is facile because most of these demands can be (and, i am optimistic, will be) met under capitalism, even if their thrust (as with all rising expectations) trends towards communism. "just wait until after the revolution to have breakfast" is not a tenable logic, and is not one you would yourself accept for something immanently possible. moreover, it is facile because radlib and idpol-left groups are still primarily left groups, at least nominally anticapitalist and pro-socialist or communist. instead of having been tricked down a blind alley of idpol demands under capitalism, they've clearly been building an integrated (if often superficial) understanding of the problems we face. the "larger share of the pie for their own kind" model cannot explain why being pro-LGBT, pro-indigenous, anti-racist, pro-immigrant, anti-imperialist, and pro-socialist are all closely correlated. (and vice versa for the opposite. if you know someone is anti-LGBT, there's more than a 50% chance he's anti-indigenous, racist, anti-immigrant, pro-imperialist, and anti-socialist!)

a better underlying model of people's political behaviour is based on underlying personality and disposition, freely expressed online. if you are a leftist you will be high-openness and high-agreeableness, drawn to ideas, basically open-minded, and pro-social. conversely, if you aren't any of these things, you will become a rightist. idpol gets so much attention because it powerfully appeals to these underlying demographic profiles: social justice causes are all integrated because the left-archetype hates social injustice, and reactionaries are all integrated (despite their specific policy disagreements) by their anti-intellectualism, closed-mindedness, and anti-social tendencies. as an underlying system this is a difficult one to disentangle, but - ironically enough - one that should be thought of post-revolution. what is to be done if many of the worst tendencies of man are not supply led (e.g. pushed by right-wing news orgs etc) but demand lead (e.g. fox news limited how much insane shit reactionaries could believe, once they had a real competitive market in news via the internet they went for Qanon schizoposting.)

this is not to discount the importance of class analysis (which can explain high-level dynamics), just to discourage "and so everything else is a distraction until the revolution" thinking. particularly because if anything the evidence points in the other way: start by making small and reasonable demands, and the more those demands aren't met, the more pressure builds! if the demands are met and pressure eases off, this is also good: improved conditions lead to increased expectations, and pressure rises yet more. on the flip side, enthusiasm and credibility are hurt when you try to overtly redirect these people into a monomaniacal class-first model of action.

p.s. /leftypol/ does have some people given to right-idpol. i would account for this via imageboards selecting for unusual personality types: in particular, open-minded but anti-social/contrarian and, ironically, closed-minded and conformist but deeply weird.

>>808973
most of these cases involve a high degree of astroturf or progressive-washing reactionary sentiment. e.g. the main anti-trans "feminist" charities in the UK are funded by US evangelicals, are given (almost certainly discounted) office space in the same building as climate change deniers, anti-tax and anti-immigration orgs, and primarily appeal to middle-aged/older women of no real previous radicalism. (the central TERF forum is, after all, mumsnet and not /r/radicalfeminism.)

JK Rowling is a fun example because while she superficially went for some LGB- pandering, you could've predicted her general trajectory based on her prior politics: pro-Blair, anti-Corbyn, anti-Scottish independence, anti-BDS. a little bit of girlboss feminism maybe, but no more pro-LGB than the then-Conservative government during her pandering phase. weighed against a woke feather, this heart is found wanting.

>>808941
no answers?

>>808976
>a better underlying model of people's political behaviour is based on underlying personality and disposition, freely expressed online. if you are a leftist you will be high-openness and high-agreeableness, drawn to ideas, basically open-minded, and pro-social. conversely, if you aren't any of these things, you will become a rightist. idpol gets so much attention because it powerfully appeals to these underlying demographic profiles: social justice causes are all integrated because the left-archetype hates social injustice, and reactionaries are all integrated (despite their specific policy disagreements) by their anti-intellectualism, closed-mindedness, and anti-social tendencies. as an underlying system this is a difficult one to disentangle, but - ironically enough - one that should be thought of post-revolution. what is to be done if many of the worst tendencies of man are not supply led (e.g. pushed by right-wing news orgs etc) but demand lead (e.g. fox news limited how much insane shit reactionaries could believe, once they had a real competitive market in news via the internet they went for Qanon schizoposting.)

what about groups like the APC and the CPGB-ML that hold conservative views on trans, pro family, anti vaccine, anti climate change.
of course they're a minority but i guess i'm wondering what stop them just becoming good ol fashioned regular reactionaries via the chud media pipeline

>>808941
fascinating, thousands of words written in this thread already, but still no basic definitions for the topics supposedly in discussion. I can only conclude that everyone is talking about their own personal spooks and accidentally using the same words.

the woke left just stole my nose

>>808976
>most of these cases involve a high degree of astroturf or progressive-washing reactionary sentiment. e.g. the main anti-trans "feminist" charities in the UK are funded by US evangelicals, are given (almost certainly discounted) office space in the same building as climate change deniers, anti-tax and anti-immigration orgs, and primarily appeal to middle-aged/older women of no real previous radicalism. (the central TERF forum is, after all, mumsnet and not /r/radicalfeminism.)

Some of it may be astroturfing but a lot of it isn’t.
Also feminists have history of promoting racism and transphobia.

>>808976
>the "larger share of the pie for their own kind" model cannot explain why being pro-LGBT, pro-indigenous, anti-racist, pro-immigrant, anti-imperialist, and pro-socialist are all closely correlated
Well, I think it's because people tend to draw lines around political issues that sit adjacent to other political issues their tribe has internalized. For instance, if you're a pro-second-amendment gun advocate, then that is tacitly approving of arms manufacture, which is passively in support of war-profiteering and imperialism, because a lot of those same arms manufacturers that supply "consumer grade" firearms to the general American public also have a hand in producing "military grade" weaponry that exchanges hands between American soldiers and terrorist groups alike. Now, you CAN be a pro-second-amendment gun advocate and still be Left leaning, but draw the line at war-profiteering, but you'd have to be thick-headed to deny how your contributions as a firearms consumer impact global warfare. This is where certain phrases like, "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" come into play; the individual has to assume some amount of responsibility for their own consumption habits, but they aren't isolated from the greater economy at large; you buy something from an online retailer, it gets shipped to you via a truck most of the time, thus you are tacitly supporting anti-environmentalist sentiment that would see the cessation of fossil fuel based transportation entirely.

Personality may have something to do with one's predisposition for adopting any given sentiment or ideology, but I think that discounts one's access and ability to absorb information in a neutral way. I think, hopefully, most people can intellectualize before they appeal to the identity of whatever political group they consider themselves a member by capitulating to the group's stance on any given topic.

Finally, I would agree with you that idpol has its place – women's rights, African American, and LGBTQIA organizations have done much to fight back against stigma and oppression and general poor treatment, but are those means of oppression symptomatic of the paradigm under which we all labor? Yes, capital can address some of these problems as long as there is a means to profit from doing so, but most of the time the capitalist isn't concerned about anything other than the attainment of profit. Thus, the market cannot regulate, and it cannot impose upon itself any sense of morality, which is where such idpol pressure, as you've mentioned, is useful and even necessary. However, in a socialist or communist system, the economy itself wouldn't have any motive other than to serve the people who operate it, and thus social issues would center around who would even be allowed admittance into such a society, and really, I think those issues would pretty much be divorced from economic concerns.

>it is facile because most of these demands can be (and, i am optimistic, will be) met under capitalism, even if their thrust (as with all rising expectations) trends towards communism. "just wait until after the revolution to have breakfast" is not a tenable logic, and is not one you would yourself accept for something immanently possible. moreover, it is facile because radlib and idpol-left groups are still primarily left groups, at least nominally anticapitalist and pro-socialist or communist. instead of having been tricked down a blind alley of idpol demands under capitalism, they've clearly been building an integrated (if often superficial) understanding of the problems we face. the "larger share of the pie for their own kind" model cannot explain why being pro-LGBT, pro-indigenous, anti-racist, pro-immigrant, anti-imperialist, and pro-socialist are all closely correlated. (and vice versa for the opposite. if you know someone is anti-LGBT, there's more than a 50% chance he's anti-indigenous, racist, anti-immigrant, pro-imperialist, and anti-socialist!)


No offense but this is a shallow take on “wokeness”. There are people who are that are pro-socialist that are against feminism but support LGBT rights and ethnic indigenous.

And there’s right wing groups that are pro-LGBT but are racist, anti capitalism, and anti imperialism.

>a better underlying model of people's political behaviour is based on underlying personality and disposition, freely expressed online. if you are a leftist you will be high-openness and high-agreeableness, drawn to ideas, basically open-minded, and pro-social. conversely, if you aren't any of these things, you will become a rightist. idpol gets so much attention because it powerfully appeals to these underlying demographic profiles: social justice causes are all integrated because the left-archetype hates social injustice, and reactionaries are all integrated (despite their specific policy disagreements) by their anti-intellectualism, closed-mindedness, and anti-social tendencies.

This is mainly self righteousness.
Many leftists claim to be empathetic and open minded but they will shoot down people who don’t agree with them to a T. Leftists wanna make everything into performance theater

“If you watch porn you’re a misogynist” while ignoring that women also watch porn and LGBT people as well.

Or how about the hostility towards technical skills being re-introduced into schools and the contempt for trades?
There’s hostility from leftists towards alternative paths outside of college education.

And then there’s this constant contempt towards femboys for having a Nazi sympathisers problem while overlooking the same thing in trans people.

And the contempt for cishet mens woes in being valued as an individual rather than a stereotype
Leftists claim to want men to be free but they crucify men for not conforming to the chivalric role that patriarchy tells them to be while also condemning men for not diversifying their roles.

>>808979
Because they’re not genuine reactionaries in the way you’re thinking?
Not everyone falls into your cookie cutter view of how “socialism” should be.

>>808995
>Finally, I would agree with you that idpol has its place – women's rights, African American, and LGBTQIA organizations have done much to fight back against stigma and oppression and general poor treatment, but are those means of oppression symptomatic of the paradigm under which we all labor? Yes

What about for cishet men and whites? You don’t think they don’t suffer as well? Are you aware that cishet males were also instrumental in progressivism not just reactionaryism?

>Yes, capital can address some of these problems as long as there is a means to profit from doing so, but most of the time the capitalist isn't concerned about anything other than the attainment of profit. Thus, the market cannot regulate, and it cannot impose upon itself any sense of morality, which is where such idpol pressure, as you've mentioned, is useful and even necessary. However, in a socialist or communist system, the economy itself wouldn't have any motive other than to serve the people who operate it, and thus social issues would center around who would even be allowed admittance into such a society, and really, I think those issues would pretty much be divorced from economic concerns.

Can you provide evidence of this?

The woke left just jerked off my femboy without my consent

>>808997
Yes, cishet males also suffer, but not in the same ways as the aforementioned groups, whose struggle is based on historical White patriarchal imperialistic oppression. Cishet males currently suffer an identity crisis, given
>Leftists claim to want men to be free but they crucify men for not conforming to the chivalric role that patriarchy tells them to be while also condemning men for not diversifying their roles
It's still idpol, but the issues that the aforementioned groups would advocate resolutions for aren't the same as that of cishet (white) males.
>provide evidence of this?
Of what, exactly? That capitalism is only ever concerned with the profit motive? Look at AI data-centers and their usage of land and drinking water. Look at telecommunications companies and how they've divvied up various service regions so as to be anti-competitive and restrict which consumers can have access to general phone and internet services. Look at factory farming and the maltreatment that animals suffer in the name of efficiency. Capitalism is not concerned with morality or social justice of any sort, and capitalist industry must have its arm twisted into adhering to regulation in order to ensure certain quality control by the state.

As for how a socialist or communist model would operate, that is a bit above my paygrade, but if you go based off how people here describe such economies, then it's easy to see that the profit motive wouldn't even be a concern. I don't know, maybe someone else can recommend you some reading material. Check /edu/ or the main board's reading sticky thread for something more comprehensive.

I agree, Luffy nakamrade. I'm a woke idpoler and I'm dangerous

>woke
>2026
White folks need to just shut all the fuckin way up. that goes quadruple for avatarposters.

>>809005
White people not the only ones complaining about woke
Also there’s far more obnoxious over use of “chud/reactionary/redpill/incel”

>>809014
>there’s far more obnoxious over use of “chud/reactionary/redpill/incel”
at least those words have a fairly defined meaning. if you complain about a chud or a reactionary I've got a general idea who you're talking about. if you complain about woke i have no idea what you're bitching about but can generally assume you're a chud or a reactionary. anybody with any good analysis as to why idpol is bad doesn't say woke.

>>809015
>at least those words have a fairly defined meaning. if you complain about a chud or a reactionary I've got a general idea who you're talking about.


So you admit that you’re biased. You have no problem with seeking out anything vitriolic as “incel/redpill” but balk when it comes to woke

>if you complain about woke i have no idea what you're bitching about but can generally assume you're a chud or a reactionary. anybody with any good analysis as to why idpol is bad doesn't say woke

What’s the difference between woke and redpill?
There’s no as much difference as you think

Incel and redpil and reactionary have all lost meaning. They’re thrown around as indignation for people who aren’t self-deprecative sycophants for blindly worship minorities for the sake of them being minorities. Or ruining franchises for “better representation” just like how the right is doing.

Alot of the language that you so called leftists use is the same self-rightoid vitriol I see with the right.

Especially on here.

If you think woke doesn’t exist neither does “reactionary/chud”

>>809021
>So you admit that you’re biased. You have no problem with seeking out anything vitriolic as “incel/redpill” but balk when it comes to woke
Biased? No. people mean a thing when they say chud or reactionary, they're interchangeable words referring to people who want to return to a previous social structure. Woke means whatever people want it to mean. And nobody outside of white reactionaries has used the word in at least five years.
>redpill
That word's even dumber than woke, shut the fuck up.
>They’re thrown around as indignation for people who aren’t self-deprecative sycophants for blindly worship minorities for the sake of them being minorities. Or ruining franchises for “better representation” just like how the right is doing.
Christ on a stick, contain yourself. You're extrapolating a lot of shit I never said.

>>809001
> As for how a socialist or communist model would operate, that is a bit above my paygrade, but if you go based off how people here describe such economies, then it's easy to see that the profit motive wouldn't even be a concern. I don't know, maybe someone else can recommend you some reading material. Check /edu/ or the main board's reading sticky thread for something more comprehensive.

Typical. You don’t know how socialism would be better at everything but you just believe it is just because?
How are you any different from religious people?

>>809029
> Biased? No. people mean a thing when they say chud or reactionary, they're interchangeable words referring to people who want to return to a previous social structure. Woke means whatever people want it to mean. And nobody outside of white reactionaries has used the word in at least five years.

Incel and chud are thrown around uselessly to mean anyone that’s critical of radlib thought in any way, especially if said radlib thought pedestalizes women and minorities for the sake of being women and minorities rather than by their merits.
Not everyone who criticizes woke cares about returning to chauvinistic times.
Woke is just the left using women, LGBT, and ethnics as “token minorities” in entertainment to sell more.
Right wing has the same version of this. See Daily Wire and Prager U with their childrens cartoons catalogue.

> That word's even dumber than woke, shut the fuck up.

So are these words:
<moid
<foid
<chud
<incel
<tankie

> Christ on a stick, contain yourself. You're extrapolating a lot of shit I never said.

It’s more that you’re acting like anyone who criticizes “woke” is “le right wing tradchaddad” who beats women and beats off to bbc

>>809067
You've got an imagination, use it.
Even in your most retarded Charlie Kirk ahh strawman notion of socialism, it's prob better than this shit. It's less how you benefit and more of how you lose in the situation because there isn't anything to be lost. Only the bourgeois has to lose.

>>809070
Explain then why a lot of Easten European immigrants in the west say that communism hasn’t worked out for them?