Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Primitive Communism]

generally speaking, to read this forum is to not desire to participate it.

however, here, i am tempted against my better judgement to say that, in my country, the dialectics about class war or class struggle, do not coincide with the dialectics about transgender surgeries for adolescents.

it is this way in most of the world.

i invite you to consider the reasons for which these two dialectics form an ideological cluster in your local culture, where they do not form such a cluster in the other many cultures in the world.

Coalition-building. It’s the same reason Islamists and black nationalists, who often aren’t particularly progressive beyond niche issues, have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles. They’re all arrayed in opposition to existing forms of hegemony and likely could not gain ground alone. Intersectionality, while a sincere attempt to describe how overlapping privileges and identities function in society, serves to alleviate what would otherwise be very obvious ideological contradictions in such a coalition. Beyond that, y’all still have an active labor movement???

"Coalition-building", as you refer to it, isn't an example of intersectionality but of what is called among the Left as "critical support"; cooperation which is seen as necessary, though not necessarily desirable, in order to achieve specific results. This is different from intersectionality - which is uncritical, meaning wholly supportive of.

You claim regarding Black Nationalism is false, also. Black Nationalism has long been one of the single largest currents for Leftism in America. The Black Panthers - which mixed Marxism with Black Nationalism - in particular were one of the most prominent Leftist organizations in American history, including such famous figures such as Huey P. Newton and Fred Hampton. Malcolm X was another prominent Black Nationalist and Leftist. Leftism was heavily intertwined in the Civil Rights movement, with even more tame voices like Martin Luther King being anti-capitalist, so it's hardly surprising that the most prominent Black Nationalists were very often Communists and Socialists. They were also typically more progressive on social issues than contemporary liberal capitalist society (or even contemporary Left-wing governments) and often supported Feminism and LGBT+ rights.

[Nilokeras]

Like a climber trying to scale a frozen waterfall, gender-affirming surgery is just where they've managed to lodge their ice axe. It's a problem going all the way back to the gay marriage debate: the polling generally shows that people are broadly supportive of LGBT rights, even among relatively conservative circles. They may think it's a sin, but they also think people should be able to live their lives as they choose without being discriminated against.

Most people are small-l liberals that way, so this sort of stance goes with the grain. The right's major failure in the LGBT rights debate in the 2010s was in failing to turn marriage into a wedge - an issue that they could wield and force enough people to get on their side about to exploit. Gender-affirming surgery, drag and sports seems to be their attempt this time around, with mixed results. One imagines the first debate between DeSantis and Trump where DeSantis tries to nail Trump about being insufficiently committed to the anti-trans crusade and Trump counters with 'you think a lot about kids' privates, Ron. That's weird'.

And it is weird, and the GOP has a very thin tightrope to walk in not coming across as deeply weird and offputting to the large majority of people who might express concern when asked by a pollster about trans kids in sports, but would think mandatory genital inspections at football games is a bridge too far.

Relevant to this:

the New York Times reported in April that message-testing determined that isolating transgender Americans might be an effective political wedge for the right.

This is not an accident, as the New York Times reported on Sunday. After the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage — and particularly after it overturned Roe v. Wade — right-wing activist groups needed a new organizing target. Terry Schilling of American Principles Project told the Times that his movement “threw everything at the wall” to find something that mobilized their base. Schilling’s organizations did polling to figure out what messages were most effective. And what they landed on will not surprise you, if you’ve been tracking the national conversation: a focus on transgender Americans, particularly in amateur sports, was a winner.

But there's questions about how effective the focus on trans issues is among the mainstream GOP:

Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, herself a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, was in New Hampshire on Wednesday, where she sought to toss some red meat to the Republican audience.

“Everybody know about Dylan Mulvaney? Bud Light?” she said, according to reporter David Weigel. “That is a guy, dressed as a girl, making fun of women.”

This would have played well on right-wing social-media, no doubt. But in the room she got nothing but crickets. This is not an animating fight for all Republicans, much less most Americans.

That’s exactly the needle they have to thread - there is room to jam that axe in about trans issues, but there’s a real gulf between the GOP base who consumes right wing culture war content all day every day and the average person, and leaning too hard on the topic du jour in a general election risks flopping among people who missed the 48 hours that the Mulvaney controversy dominated discourse.

The risk too is that I don’t think there’s remotely a consensus who the target is in this discourse - you can see it flop in real time with those remarks by Haley. The successful wedge is in setting up the target as the woke liberals pushing this stuff on kids. Attacking a random trans person like Mulvaney as ‘a man’ is jarringly mean spirited and out of line with peoples’ actual beliefs, which is generally ‘discrimination is bad’, even if how they vote leads to discrimination in practice.

[Nilokeras]

Coalition-building. It’s the same reason Islamists and black nationalists, who often aren’t particularly progressive beyond niche issues, have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles.

Did you just step out of a time machine from 2008? Is that why you’re re-hashing discourse from the election of Obama in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty two?

Like come on. I know you’re smarter than to believe this line Fahran.

[Fahran]

Did you just step out of a time machine from 2008? Is that why you’re re-hashing discourse from the election of Obama in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty two?

Like come on. I know you’re smarter than to believe this line Fahran.

I mean… this strikes me as fairly intuitive. The GOP and most right-wing political organizations represent coalitions of varying factions and interests (libertarians, dominionists, anti-feminists, white identitarians, etc.) that seek to conserve existing hegemonies, conventions, institutions, and hierarchies. With regard to black nationalism and Islamism, you only really need look at threads on NSG discussing relevant topics to see queer progressives or socialists defending arguments that bolster the aforementioned positions or attacking arguments that oppose them. It’s not really an out-there observation.

And, no, I’m not about to begin speculating about how Mr. Afghan Bomber 2012 was a Kenyan Muslim who hated ypipo. Would have been based though.

I could probably go further and point out that not associating social and economic issues is the rarer tendency among modern left-wing intellectuals, and one that has largely survived among old socialists who never really got with the program that came out of the 1960s and 1970s.

[Neoncomplexultra]

You claim regarding Black Nationalism is false, also.

i wrote no claims about black nationalism, so it is impossible that i wrote any false claims.

i wrote about western blacks, as an ethnic voting bloc, and cited the hypothesis that their voting behavior is primarily motivated by material self-interest as poor. i compared them to the voting bloc of muslims, who are divided in the progressive-socialist cluster as religious conservative poor, but are more strongly motivated by being poor, and so prove the theory that the motivation of material self-interest takes precedence even over moral ideological contradiction.

it is not possible to have discourse if you do not read what i wrote. i can only write it again, and no understanding is gained.

that there may exist a politically vocal minority of progressive socialists in the blacks does not disprove the basis of my question. there are also minorities of progressive capitalists and of conservative socialists, but these are minorities. i am asking why the majority is clustered in the other way.

[Uiiop]

Did you just step out of a time machine from 2008? Is that why you’re re-hashing discourse from the election of Obama in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty two?

Like come on. I know you’re smarter than to believe this line Fahran.

I mean… this strikes me as fairly intuitive. The GOP and most right-wing political organizations represent coalitions of varying factions and interests (libertarians, dominionists, anti-feminists, white identitarians, etc.) that seek to conserve existing hegemonies, conventions, institutions, and hierarchies. With regard to black nationalism and Islamism, you only really need look at threads on NSG discussing relevant topics to see queer progressives or socialists defending arguments that bolster the aforementioned positions or attacking arguments that oppose them. It’s not really an out-there observation.

And, no, I’m not about to begin speculating about how Mr. Afghan Bomber 2012 was a Kenyan Muslim who hated ypipo. Would have been based though.

The NBPP was literally only brought in this thread in terms of "This is who leftist gun clubs reject." and it ain't progressives who are apologizing for the Saudis.

I respect most of your posts on here but frankly...what the hell are you talking about?

[Necroghastia]

You claim regarding Black Nationalism is false, also.

i wrote no claims about black nationalism, so it is impossible that i wrote any false claims.

i wrote about western blacks, as an ethnic voting bloc, and cited the hypothesis that their voting behavior is primarily motivated by material self-interest as poor. i compared them to the voting bloc of muslims, who are divided in the progressive-socialist cluster as religious conservative poor, but are more strongly motivated by being poor, and so prove the theory that the motivation of material self-interest takes precedence even over moral ideological contradiction.

it is not possible to have discourse if you do not read what i wrote. i can only write it again, and no understanding is gained.

>"it is not possible to have discourse if you do not read what i wrote."
>said after chewing someone out for supposedly putting words in your mouth even though they were responding to a different poster

[Neoncomplexultra]

"Coalition-building", as you refer to it, isn't an example of intersectionality but of what is called among the Left as "critical support"; cooperation which is seen as necessary, though not necessarily desirable, in order to achieve specific results. This is different from intersectionality - which is uncritical, meaning wholly supportive of.

it follows a certain political theory to offer to the people, that we will change the names of their material conditions, instead of changing the facts of their material conditions. this is easier to do and it is proven to manage or redirect discontent in a cost-effective way.

so with your new language, the question is, why is there intersectionality between progressive and socialist ideologies in the west, and conversely between conservative and capitalist ideologies?

now we have changed the name of the question, but the fact of it has not changed. there has been no material progress.

[Armeattla]

generally speaking, to read this forum is to not desire to participate it.

however, here, i am tempted against my better judgement to say that, in my country, the dialectics about class war or class struggle, do not coincide with the dialectics about transgender surgeries for adolescents.

it is this way in most of the world.

i invite you to consider the reasons for which these two dialectics form an ideological cluster in your local culture, where they do not form such a cluster in the other many cultures in the world.

Because the "west" has done enough economic and social progress for those questions to pop up - women's suffrage required the preceding of general men's suffrage, gay acknowledgements required first stages of women's emancipation, trans acknowledgement requires gay normalization.
It is the slow unravelling of patriarchy, patrilineal inheritance and accumulation of capital and property - and this is the intersection between class struggle and minority emancipation, it is a matter of basis and superstructure. The existence of homosexuality and transgender people stands in contradiction to the interest of inheritance and accumulation as inherited from feudal material conditions - they threaten the continuity of the "blood line" and therefore the intergenerational maintenance and accumulation of property.

And to point it out: "transgender surgeries for adolescents" is just a talking point - in many cases behind it hides attempts at entirely eliminating the care for transgender people and curtailing the knowledge that they and other queer people exist - it is one approach of attempting to save and preserve the current order and institution of inheritance (the other being queer assimilation - creating the expectation of adoption, artificial insemination and surrogacy).

[Neoncomplexultra]

>"it is not possible to have discourse if you do not read what i wrote."
>said after chewing someone out for supposedly putting words in your mouth even though they were responding to a different poster

oh, i see. sorry, i have a hard time understanding.

[Nilokeras]

Did you just step out of a time machine from 2008? Is that why you’re re-hashing discourse from the election of Obama in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty two?

Like come on. I know you’re smarter than to believe this line Fahran.

I mean… this strikes me as fairly intuitive. The GOP and most right-wing political organizations represent coalitions of varying factions and interests (libertarians, dominionists, anti-feminists, white identitarians, etc.) that seek to conserve existing hegemonies, conventions, institutions, and hierarchies. With regard to black nationalism and Islamism, you only really need look at threads on NSG discussing relevant topics to see queer progressives or socialists defending arguments that bolster the aforementioned positions or attacking arguments that oppose them. It’s not really an out-there observation.

And, no, I’m not about to begin speculating about how Mr. Afghan Bomber 2012 was a Kenyan Muslim who hated ypipo. Would have been based though.

I could probably go further and point out that not associating social and economic issues is the rarer tendency among modern left-wing intellectuals, and one that has largely survived among old socialists who never really got with the program that came out of the 1960s and 1970s.

It really is an 'out there' observation, not the least of which because it's just not not true? Some random person on NSG who you don't even name specifically or link to has absolutely no bearing on politics in the real world whatsoever. Touch grass please, for the love of god.

[Neoncomplexultra]

Because the "west" has done enough economic and social progress for those questions to pop up - women's suffrage required the preceding of general men's suffrage, gay acknowledgements required first stages of women's emancipation, trans acknowledgement requires gay normalization.
It is the slow unravelling of patriarchy, patrilineal inheritance and accumulation of capital and property - and this is the intersection between class struggle and minority emancipation, it is a matter of basis and superstructure. The existence of homosexuality and transgender people stands in contradiction to the interest of inheritance and accumulation as inherited from feudal material conditions - they threaten the continuity of the "blood line" and therefore the intergenerational maintenance and accumulation of property.

the institution of inheritance is not intrinsically necessary to capitalism.

firstly, capital is currently managed in the west primarily through corporate structures, not through family dynasties. it would be theoretically possible to replace the family structure with a fully public cloning vat policy, and to perpetuate a capitalist system, with a consumer economy with an investment-based corporate structure as now exists, with a population of sterile clones.

secondly, for those who accumulate and transfer wealth generationally, they could easily preserve this system by simply having more children and relying on statistics. in the old system of inheritance, only male heirs were valid, some of those were disqualified by death or by other conditions. so, the existence of homosexuals or self-sterilized people in the population would have only been another risk factor, and the solution to these risk factors is to have more potential heirs. for example, the american oligarch Elon Musk has a transgendered child, but he also has more children, so the existence of political homosexuality in his society does not interfere.

it is also be possible to perpetuate family or dynasty through surrogacy, so this is not a problem anyway.

thirdly, it would only be necessary for the property-owning class to retain the system of inheritance. this class is always a minority, and the political homosexuality of the general or proletarian culture does not directly affect bourgeois culture. so, the existence of political homosexuality does not threaten the capitalist system. political homosexuality is most visible in capitalist society and appears to be causally related to it; it appears to be a product of it.

[Fahran]

The NBPP was literally only brought in this thread in terms of "This is who leftist gun clubs reject." and it ain't progressives who are apologizing for the Saudis.

I respect most of your posts on here but frankly...what the hell are you talking about?

I’ll provide some examples. And I’ll emphasize the ones a bit more relevant to a thread on violence against LGBT+ people.

Let’s look at Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. While there’s serious speculation regarding the sexuality of the civil rights activist, there have always been serious stumbling blocks within the black community as well as religious organizations such as the Nation of Islam when it comes to the acceptance of queerness. This isn’t really new. Early suffragettes and black civil rights activists had similar issues where one group had no particular interest in supporting the other due to deep investments in patriarchy and white supremacy respectively.

There’s also a tendency to perceive folks like hoteps or Black Hebrew Israelites as left-wing instinctively in popular media, especially when they’re facing down white counter-protestors. The ADL has probably been one of the more consistent organizations when it comes to labeling these groups as homophobic, Antisemitic, etc.

A lot of what early intersectional frameworks accomplished was discussing this problem and seeking to provide a solution to it. The New Left and its antecedents weren’t a singular group and didn’t agree on everything. Really, the Left still doesn’t agree on everything - which occasionally creates clashes between these different interest groups. Since the 1990s especially, there’s been a deliberate effort by folks like Al Sharpton or, even more surprisingly, Louis Farrakhan to address concerns over homophobia. Likewise, there’s been discussions in queer and Jewish communities about anti-blackness.

And I could go on.

[Fahran]

It really is an 'out there' observation, not the least of which because it's just not not true? Some random person on NSG who you don't even name specifically or link to has absolutely no bearing on politics in the real world whatsoever. Touch grass please, for the love of god.

Which part do you find objectionable? I can provide you with either NS links or articles demonstrating what I mean.

[Aggicificicerous]

Like a climber trying to scale a frozen waterfall, gender-affirming surgery is just where they've managed to lodge their ice axe. It's a problem going all the way back to the gay marriage debate: the polling generally shows that people are broadly supportive of LGBT rights, even among relatively conservative circles. They may think it's a sin, but they also think people should be able to live their lives as they choose without being discriminated against.

Most people are small-l liberals that way, so this sort of stance goes with the grain. The right's major failure in the LGBT rights debate in the 2010s was in failing to turn marriage into a wedge - an issue that they could wield and force enough people to get on their side about to exploit. Gender-affirming surgery, drag and sports seems to be their attempt this time around, with mixed results. One imagines the first debate between DeSantis and Trump where DeSantis tries to nail Trump about being insufficiently committed to the anti-trans crusade and Trump counters with 'you think a lot about kids' privates, Ron. That's weird'.

And it is weird, and the GOP has a very thin tightrope to walk in not coming across as deeply weird and offputting to the large majority of people who might express concern when asked by a pollster about trans kids in sports, but would think mandatory genital inspections at football games is a bridge too far.

Sure there's a good chunk of ordinary people who don't care about trans people existing and are shocked at right wingers sending death threats to beer companies or whatnot. But because many of those people haven't given the matter much thought, they're much more likely to be swayed by some insipid NYT or Atlantic article that's 'just asking questions' about trans healthcare. We've already seen the UK devolve because its media is obsessed with pushing trans people as some sort of threat or affront to the women. In the US (and Canada because we love washing the US's dirty laundry), all those pundits who laundered right wing talking points are lying low as trans people get called pedophiles and venues get bombarded with death threats for hosting drag shows. Any reasonable concerns there? Of course not. So a lot of people are put off by Bud Light getting harassed, and then go back to their lives. Genital inspections can be seen as isolated incidents, not as part of an overall trend that the GOP is pushing.

[Nilokeras]

It really is an 'out there' observation, not the least of which because it's just not not true? Some random person on NSG who you don't even name specifically or link to has absolutely no bearing on politics in the real world whatsoever. Touch grass please, for the love of god.

Which part do you find objectionable? I can provide you with either NS links or articles demonstrating what I mean.

No need - you said everything you needed to say in arguing that the proof that black nationalism and Islamism 'have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles' is CNN lumping together different protest movements.

Again, please touch grass.

[Armeattla]

Because the "west" has done enough economic and social progress for those questions to pop up - women's suffrage required the preceding of general men's suffrage, gay acknowledgements required first stages of women's emancipation, trans acknowledgement requires gay normalization.
It is the slow unravelling of patriarchy, patrilineal inheritance and accumulation of capital and property - and this is the intersection between class struggle and minority emancipation, it is a matter of basis and superstructure. The existence of homosexuality and transgender people stands in contradiction to the interest of inheritance and accumulation as inherited from feudal material conditions - they threaten the continuity of the "blood line" and therefore the intergenerational maintenance and accumulation of property.

the institution of inheritance is not intrinsically necessary to capitalism.

firstly, capital is currently managed in the west primarily through corporate structures, not through family dynasties. it would be theoretically possible to replace the family structure with a fully public cloning vat policy, and to perpetuate a capitalist system, with a consumer economy with an investment-based corporate structure as now exists, with a population of sterile clones.

Indeed, it is a remnant from the transition from feudalism to capitalism - one of many to be frank.
However it is also necessary to point out that families are a perfect environment for creating competent successors - there is a reason there are exclusive colleges and schools only accessible to the owning classes.
Another use of heteronormativity is to maintain the reproduction of the labour force in a heavily atomized and artificially scarce society.

secondly, for those who accumulate and transfer wealth generationally, they could easily preserve this system by simply having more children and relying on statistics. in the old system of inheritance, only male heirs were valid, some of those were disqualified by death or by other conditions. so, the existence of homosexuals or self-sterilized people in the population would have only been another risk factor, and the solution to these risk factors is to have more potential heirs. for example, the american oligarch Elon Musk has a transgendered child, but he also has more children, so the existence of political homosexuality in his society does not interfere.

It's called risk management. It can be assumed that 20% of the population is genuinely straight and 60% have mutliple or no attractions (as has been shown in transgender populations - assumption is it's perfectly translatable to the cisgender population), half of which may enter a opposite-gender relationship, which leaves us with 50% of people to do so. Having 4 children refuse to enter a reproductive relationship is ~7%, or 1 in 16. This is actually a massive risk for intergenerational continuity - hence institutions such as heteronormativity (the norm and assumption that everyone is and must be heterosexual).

thirdly, it would only be necessary for the property-owning class to retain the system of inheritance. this class is always a minority, and the political homosexuality of the general or proletarian culture does not directly affect bourgeois culture. so, the existence of political homosexuality does not threaten the capitalist system. political homosexuality is most visible in capitalist society and appears to be causally related to it; it appears to be a product of it.

The owning classes always had a tendency to enforce and encourage their own cultural norms onto working classes - both as a function of control as well as securing their own culture.
As for the "prevalence of political homosexuality"... two things: Queer Assimilationism and Rainbow Capitalism. The former is the attempt to integrate queer people into the institution of inheritance and reproduction. It used to be, even for liberals, unimaginable for a gay couple to adopt. Nowadays, especially among liberals, it is an implicit assumption that a gay couple should adopt. It is an attempt to integration gay people into reproductive labour.
And the latter... is capitalism's annoying tendency to subsume it's contradictions and criticisms into things to be consumed and to be profited off. Companies don't actually care for gay rights - but they will still gladly do lip service at Pride in order to just make some more money. A lot of us are very much aware of that - and many quite despise it (just like coppers at pride). They go on about "Inclusive policies", but still pay LGBT people less than the rest.
To this also counts pink washing, aka using the maltreatment of queer people as an excuse to push for imperialism (or even settler colonialism) - usually while giving zero fucks about the maltreatment of queer people at home or elsewhere.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

tf is “political homosexuality of general culture” supposed to mean? acceptance of gay people?

also, capitalism does not cause gay people. there are gay people in every society, it’s just that the western capitalist nations are the ones least likely to kill or imprison gay people. but to be clear, there are plenty of capitalist nations that are also restrictive on homosexuality.

[Senkaku]

It really is an 'out there' observation, not the least of which because it's just not not true? Some random person on NSG who you don't even name specifically or link to has absolutely no bearing on politics in the real world whatsoever. Touch grass please, for the love of god.

Which part do you find objectionable? I can provide you with either NS links or articles demonstrating what I mean.

The part where you would rather talk about how the loony left is embracing hoteps and Hezbollah, rather than the thread topic, again, as usual? All because an account created yesterday that’s now talking about the viability of cloning vat-based consumer economies (?) said the “dialectics” of gender-affirming surgery (??) don’t “align” with class struggle— it’s like one step up from an Algerstonia shitpost, and I’m starting to feel like you’re turning every thread into every other thread.

[Uiiop]

The NBPP was literally only brought in this thread in terms of "This is who leftist gun clubs reject." and it ain't progressives who are apologizing for the Saudis.

I respect most of your posts on here but frankly...what the hell are you talking about?

I’ll provide some examples. And I’ll emphasize the ones a bit more relevant to a thread on violence against LGBT+ people.

Let’s look at Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. While there’s serious speculation regarding the sexuality of the civil rights activist, there have always been serious stumbling blocks within the black community as well as religious organizations such as the Nation of Islam when it comes to the acceptance of queerness. This isn’t really new. Early suffragettes and black civil rights activists had similar issues where one group had no particular interest in supporting the other due to deep investments in patriarchy and white supremacy respectively.

There’s also a tendency to perceive folks like hoteps or Black Hebrew Israelites as left-wing instinctively in popular media, especially when they’re facing down white counter-protestors. The ADL has probably been one of the more consistent organizations when it comes to labeling these groups as homophobic, Antisemitic, etc.

A lot of what early intersectional frameworks accomplished was discussing this problem and seeking to provide a solution to it. The New Left and its antecedents weren’t a singular group and didn’t agree on everything. Really, the Left still doesn’t agree on everything - which occasionally creates clashes between these different interest groups. Since the 1990s especially, there’s been a deliberate effort by folks like Al Sharpton or, even more surprisingly, Louis Farrakhan to address concerns over homophobia. Likewise, there’s been discussions in queer and Jewish communities about anti-blackness.

And I could go on.

Your assertions are condtictions your claims.

Talking about shit about the 90's in themselves no ways proves leftist has "have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles". This is incoherence.

Nor do i find the assertions that NSG is somehow an authoritative sample of leftism seriously. We're not.

[Uiiop]

Which part do you find objectionable? I can provide you with either NS links or articles demonstrating what I mean.

The part where you would rather talk about how the loony left is embracing hoteps and Hezbollah, rather than the thread topic, again, as usual? All because an account created yesterday that’s now talking about the viability of cloning vat-based consumer economies (?) said the “dialectics” of gender-affirming surgery (??) don’t “align” with class struggle— it’s like one step up from an Algerstonia shitpost, and I’m starting to feel like you’re turning every thread into every other thread.

TBF she's trying to turn it around into somehow proving leftism are themselves are actually more tolerant of these groups homophobia.


Did she not miss the only vaguely relevant black nationalist group on this topic was literally named after "Gays might be the most oppressed people" Huey Newton?

So yeah still pretty oof.

[Fahran]

No need - you said everything you needed to say in arguing that the proof that black nationalism and Islamism 'have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles' is CNN lumping together different protest movements.

Again, please touch grass.

It’s not just CNN lumping together random protests, though that does happen plenty. I’m pointing out that the New Left emerged as a coalition of various interest groups, such as civil rights activists, feminists, non-white identitarians, queer liberationists, progressives, socialists, etc. and that often these groups had conflicting interests or else did not take the interests of other groups into account. Which answers the question that was initially asked. But if news media, peer arguments, and intellectual history are all bad sources on the Left I’m Noh really certain what you would call a good source.

[Senkaku]

No need - you said everything you needed to say in arguing that the proof that black nationalism and Islamism 'have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles' is CNN lumping together different protest movements.

Again, please touch grass.

It’s not just CNN lumping together random protests, though that does happen plenty. I’m pointing out that the New Left emerged as a coalition of various interest groups, such as civil rights activists, feminists, non-white identitarians, queer liberationists, progressives, socialists, etc. and that often these groups had conflicting interests or else did not take the interests of other groups into account. Which answers the question that was initially asked. But if news media, peer arguments, and intellectual history are all bad sources on the Left I’m Noh really certain what you would call a good source.

“The modern American left is a big coalition”— it’s blinding moments of visionary insight like this that make us all look forward to your participation in threads like these.

[Uiiop]

No need - you said everything you needed to say in arguing that the proof that black nationalism and Islamism 'have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles' is CNN lumping together different protest movements.

Again, please touch grass.

It’s not just CNN lumping together random protests, though that does happen plenty. I’m pointing out that the New Left emerged as a coalition of various interest groups, such as civil rights activists, feminists, non-white identitarians, queer liberationists, progressives, socialists, etc. and that often these groups had conflicting interests or else did not take the interests of other groups into account. Which answers the question that was initially asked. But if news media, peer arguments, and intellectual history are all bad sources on the Left I’m Noh really certain what you would call a good source.

"Leftism is a big messy coaltion" just reads as an obvious motte to the "Homophobic black nationalists and islamists have begun to be actively supported by the left." bailey

We know what you actually said....unless you're an hacker you can't just undo " Islamists and black nationalists, who often aren’t particularly progressive beyond niche issues, have begun to receive some degree of support in left-wing circles."

[Fahran]

TBF she's trying to turn it around into somehow proving leftism are themselves are actually more tolerant of these groups homophobia.


Did she not miss the only vaguely relevant black nationalist group on this topic was literally named after "Gays might be the most oppressed people" Huey Newton?

So yeah still pretty oof.

Not quite, though I will point out that homophobia in social groups that identify with the political left has been studied at length. I’m describing how the New Left emerged, why groups within it occasionally have conflicting interests, and how intersectionality seeks to address and explain those conflicts. It’s not really an exercise in “the left are the real homophobes.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

I brought this up, together with a couple ideas that were ignored out of hand, to explain why the Left cares about social issues such as same-sex marriage or violence against trans people - and not simply the redistribution of wealth. It’s because the New Left emerged as a coalition that included LGBT+ rights activists among other groups and intersectionality provided a coherent framework explaining ostensible conflicts and resolving them.

It’s somewhat relevant - as I mentioned - because it has served to tackle homophobia and transphobia amid more marginalized communities.