Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Senkaku]

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.

We started from maximalist claims about “the left embracing Islamists” couched on the basis of some old forum arguments that haven’t been linked to, and ended up at “the New Left is a coalition” on the basis of some thin historical summaries of a few Black nationalist figures’ relationships with civil rights leaders and movements. Your interpretation of her argument, which I can’t decide whether to call generous or harsh, is more explicitly linked to the thread topic than anything she’s actually directly offered (up to the last post that just ninja’d me, which is still pretty tangential). If the argument is “the left is doing more to enable transphobia/homophobia than [whoever]” or “the left is just as bad,” let’s get those statements in writing and straight from the source, instead of having to read tea leaves or do dream interpretation to try and understand her deeper motives. It seems more like just going off on a tangent about how bad or hypocritical the left is and then belatedly trying to tack on a thin justification for how talking about it is related to the topic.

[Uiiop]

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.

How is " 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." somehow the an argument saying leftists have recently supported Islamic and black nationalist homophobia?

[Fahran]

"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."

Not really, no. Please see above.

If you would like examples of these conflicts between interest groups in the contemporary US or UK, or even attempts by thought leaders to address bigotry in their own communities, I can provide some examples. I’ll stick to homophobia and transphobia here, of course, but this isn’t even a right-wing talking point. It’s literally a positivist description of how coalition-based politics work.

Y’all need to stop viewing every lukewarm take I have as some sort of attack. More often than not, it isn’t and can actually be traced to a notable left-wing thinker or academic.

[Uiiop]

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.

We started from maximalist claims about “the left embracing Islamists” couched on the basis of some old forum arguments that haven’t been linked to, and ended up at “the New Left is a coalition” on the basis of some thin historical summaries of a few Black nationalist figures’ relationships with civil rights leaders and movements. Your interpretation of her argument, which I can’t decide whether to call generous or harsh, is more explicitly linked to the thread topic than anything she’s actually directly offered. If the argument is “the left is doing more to enable transphobia/homophobia than [whoever]” or “the left is just as bad,” let’s get those statements in writing and straight from the source, instead of having to read tea leaves or do dream interpretation to try and understand her deeper motives.

Looking back on it it does sound like she's just trying to sloppily explain collation politics...but that's not remotly how it came out and her defenses bringing up homophobia when i asked for explicitly recent support did not help her case.

I'll back down tho.

[Uiiop]

"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."

Not really, no. Please see above.

If you would like examples of these conflicts between interest groups in the contemporary US or UK, or even attempts by thought leaders to address bigotry in their own communities, I can provide some examples. I’ll stick to homophobia and transphobia here, of course, but this isn’t even a right-wing talking point. It’s literally a positivist description of how coalition-based politics work.

Y’all need to stop viewing every lukewarm take I have as some sort of attack. More often than not, it isn’t and can actually be traced to a notable left-wing thinker or academic.

The Huey Newton letter I'd just linked even counts as an example.

It's not like i don't get what you're trying to say now but what came out was so over-simplified and misinformed it took me a bit to figure what you're actually doing.


What leftist think they're doing with Islamist is not what they would call straight forward support for one. They're too stuck on secular and even post-new atheist framing of these things to not go with "A people who believes in islam" rather than "Islamist person".

[Fahran]

How is " 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." somehow the an argument saying leftists have recently supported Islamic and black nationalist homophobia?

I never said the Modern Left supports homophobia - at least not deliberately. I was explaining that people who get hot under the collar over someone burning a Quran, someone who thinks all Ancient Egyptians were all black, and someone who wants to have gender-affirming care are quite likely to vote for similar political parties at the moment - because, despite obviously distinct interests, they have the same political enemies and a similar goal of challenging existing institutions to some degree. This isn’t a hot take. It’s practically frozen given leftists reached it in the 1970s at the absolute latest.

[Uiiop]

How is " 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." somehow the an argument saying leftists have recently supported Islamic and black nationalist homophobia?

I never said the Modern Left supports homophobia - at least not deliberately. I was explaining that people who get hot under the collar over someone burning a Quran, someone who thinks all Ancient Egyptians were all black, and someone who wants to have gender-affirming care are quite likely to vote for similar political parties at the moment - because, despite obviously distinct interests, they have the same political enemies and a similar goal of challenging existing institutions to some degree. This isn’t a hot take. It’s practically frozen given leftists reached it in the 1970s at the absolute latest.

"Have begun" is an weird term of phrase to use over obvious stuff that's not actually recent. That's why we were assuming you were going to off on some 2008 islamophobia.That's a misstatement if you intended to discuss an non-recent overview of islamic-leftist to show how messed up coalitions are.

[Exogenous Imperium]

I still vividly remember them cheering on the murders in Colorado Springs last Novemeber. The right wing thought leaders and their adherents want queer people dead, plain and simple.

If this is the case then why are they not all dead?

[Senkaku]

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.

This line is the molten core of terminally online idiocy that’s been powering this entire ridiculous tangent. Some left-wing types on here are sometimes critical in other threads of how far reactionary final solutions and justifications go when said reactionaries respond to hoteps or Hamas members… therefore something something “The Left” is “Supporting” Islamism & right-wing black Nationalism; and since some of the leftists doing this say they’re queer… and then it trails off into subtextual innuendo.

at least not deliberately.

Lol

I was explaining that people who get hot under the collar over someone burning a Quran, someone who thinks all Ancient Egyptians were all black, and someone who wants to have gender-affirming care

Please tell me this is the setup for a “3 people walk into a bar” joke, not you about to ground your political interpretation of multiple social movements in a blenderized version of all the NSG takes you disagree with…

[Uiiop]

I still vividly remember them cheering on the murders in Colorado Springs last Novemeber. The right wing thought leaders and their adherents want queer people dead, plain and simple.

If this is the case then why are they not all dead?

Political intention and execution are different things...News at 11.

[Fahran]

"Have begun" is an weird term of phrase to use over obvious stuff that's not actually recent. That's why we were assuming you were going to off on some 2008 islamophobia.That's a misstatement if you intended to discuss an non-recent overview of islamic-leftist to show how messed up coalitions are.

Muslim identitarians and Islamists having any support or defense among the political left in the West is fairly recent, having only really emerged in response to the interventionism and Islamophobia of the political right in the aftermath of 9/11. There were some traces of it before then, at least in the UK, but it definitely post-dates the initial emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. This is most obvious when we look at voting patterns of American Muslims, but we could probably study the change in rhetoric and issue salience without too much difficulty.

[Necroghastia]

"Have begun" is an weird term of phrase to use over obvious stuff that's not actually recent. That's why we were assuming you were going to off on some 2008 islamophobia.That's a misstatement if you intended to discuss an non-recent overview of islamic-leftist to show how messed up coalitions are.

Muslim identitarians and Islamists having any support or defense among the political left in the West is fairly recent, having only really emerged in response to the interventionism and Islamophobia of the political right in the aftermath of 9/11. There were some traces of it before then, at least in the UK, but it definitely post-dates the initial emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. This is most obvious when we look at voting patterns of American Muslims, but we could probably study the change in rhetoric and issue salience without too much difficulty.

now this might just be too much high-falutin' college vocab words for my smooth southerner brain but what does this have to do with the right-wing's increasing bloodthirst vis-à-vis LGBTQIA folks?

[Uiiop]

"Have begun" is an weird term of phrase to use over obvious stuff that's not actually recent. That's why we were assuming you were going to off on some 2008 islamophobia.That's a misstatement if you intended to discuss an non-recent overview of islamic-leftist to show how messed up coalitions are.

Muslim identitarians and Islamists having any support or defense among the political left in the West is fairly recent, having only really emerged in response to the interventionism and Islamophobia of the political right in the aftermath of 9/11. There were some traces of it before then, at least in the UK, but it definitely post-dates the initial emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. This is most obvious when we look at voting patterns of American Muslims, but we could probably study the change in rhetoric and issue salience without too much difficulty.

I suspect this is another semantic hangup.
To put things in modern parlance: No one supported theocrats. At most we're just supporting their right be cancelled for solely their homophobia in American soil rather than deported or assumed anyone else is like them for their faith. Queer-friendly followers of Islam and basically Normies attitudes in Islam already existed. It's fair to point that shit was messy but you make it sound like people partnered with theocracy beyond stupid geopolitics and that's not what happened.

[Fahran]

Muslim identitarians and Islamists having any support or defense among the political left in the West is fairly recent, having only really emerged in response to the interventionism and Islamophobia of the political right in the aftermath of 9/11. There were some traces of it before then, at least in the UK, but it definitely post-dates the initial emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. This is most obvious when we look at voting patterns of American Muslims, but we could probably study the change in rhetoric and issue salience without too much difficulty.

now this might just be too much high-falutin' college vocab words for my smooth southerner brain but what does this have to do with the right-wing's increasing bloodthirst vis-à-vis LGBTQIA folks?

I was attempting to explain the intellectual and political history of why queer rights have become a central tenant of left-wing politics. The simple answer is “the New Left was and the Modern Left remains a coalition of often disparate interest groups, and intersectionality has become the central framework of modern left-wing politics.” I must have explained that poorly because the responses mostly emphasized two groups involved in that coalition that folks here would prefer not to be associated with.

[Uiiop]

Muslim identitarians and Islamists having any support or defense among the political left in the West is fairly recent, having only really emerged in response to the interventionism and Islamophobia of the political right in the aftermath of 9/11. There were some traces of it before then, at least in the UK, but it definitely post-dates the initial emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. This is most obvious when we look at voting patterns of American Muslims, but we could probably study the change in rhetoric and issue salience without too much difficulty.

now this might just be too much high-falutin' college vocab words for my smooth southerner brain but what does this have to do with the right-wing's increasing bloodthirst vis-à-vis LGBTQIA folks?

This is a round-about way of trying to explain how the left and queer rights weren't initially intertwined and trying to show other examples of weird coalition building.

[Fahran]

I suspect this is another semantic hangup.
To put things in modern parlance: No one supported theocrats. At most we're just supporting their right be cancelled for solely their homophobia in American soil rather than deported or assumed anyone else is like them for their faith. Queer-friendly followers of Islam and basically Normies attitudes in Islam already existed. It's fair to point that shit was messy but you make it sound like people partnered with theocracy beyond stupid geopolitics and that's not what happened.

My entire point is that interest groups do not need to have the same values across the board to form a coalition. They simply need similar political enemies and a couple overlapping and salient issues on which they agree. You don’t really need to be a theocrat to criticize films or art that offend Deobandis or to oppose the War On Terror. I don’t agree with most of my fellow right-wingers on many things. We’re still in the same coalition. And for the same reason.

[Galactic Powers]

Muslim identitarians and Islamists having any support or defense among the political left in the West is fairly recent, having only really emerged in response to the interventionism and Islamophobia of the political right in the aftermath of 9/11. There were some traces of it before then, at least in the UK, but it definitely post-dates the initial emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. This is most obvious when we look at voting patterns of American Muslims, but we could probably study the change in rhetoric and issue salience without too much difficulty.

now this might just be too much high-falutin' college vocab words for my smooth southerner brain but what does this have to do with the right-wing's increasing bloodthirst vis-à-vis LGBTQIA folks?

The post that started this whole thing was this:

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.

Which kind of sparked a whole thing about intersectionality, somehow.

[Necroghastia]

now this might just be too much high-falutin' college vocab words for my smooth southerner brain but what does this have to do with the right-wing's increasing bloodthirst vis-à-vis LGBTQIA folks?

The post that started this whole thing was this:

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.

Which kind of sparked a whole thing about intersectionality, somehow.

I mean, I'm aware of what started it. I just think it's a bunch of overcomplicated pretension that serves no purpose but to obfuscate discussion of actual issues.

[Fahran]

I mean, I'm aware of what started it. I just think it's a bunch of overcomplicated pretension that serves no purpose but to obfuscate discussion of actual issues.

I mean… the conversation on hegemony does implicitly suggest long-term solutions to the problems of homophobia and transphobia. It also gives us an explanation for why those problems may have flared up with changes in issue salience. And my framing of right and left sort of reflects that as well. But, again, it was a simple answer to a simple question. I wasn’t expecting such a visceral reaction to it.

[Galactic Powers]

The post that started this whole thing was this:

Which kind of sparked a whole thing about intersectionality, somehow.

I mean, I'm aware of what started it. I just think it's a bunch of overcomplicated pretension that serves no purpose but to obfuscate discussion of actual issues.

A discussion about why the left supports LGBT is also an aspect of understanding the current state of conservative hate against them. At least, I think. Admittedly I didn't understand a lot of that whole thing though...

[Fahran]

I mean, I'm aware of what started it. I just think it's a bunch of overcomplicated pretension that serves no purpose but to obfuscate discussion of actual issues.

A discussion about why the left supports LGBT is also an aspect of understanding the current state of conservative hate against them. At least, I think. Admittedly I didn't understand a lot of that whole thing though...

Not quite, though my earlier mentions of hegemony - in the form of heteronormativity - do tie into that somewhat. In essence, any and all culture war debates are negotiations over the forms of hegemony that will prevail in our society. And all society and all hegemony are predicated on coercion. It doesn’t really change the prescription for how an individual perspective person might approach it based on their particular views but it does frame it without pretense - well, excluding the usual bit of intellectual pretense peculiar to academics and people who read theory.

I’ll word it as simply as I can and use an earlier example. “Teaching children about gay and trans issues gives them a frame of reference to navigate the world as gay and trans youth or as accepting peers. This will help alleviate homophobia, transphobia, and other issues. That frame of reference informs a worldview and paradigm - one that will become hegemonic if most people subscribe to it.”

Again, I don’t believe much of what I said is controversial. It’s either been linked to a study or is the most cookie-cutter form of critical theory applied in a way that is a bit more nuanced and neutral than “they’re reactionaries.”

[Nilokeras]

How is " 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." somehow the an argument saying leftists have recently supported Islamic and black nationalist homophobia?

I never said the Modern Left supports homophobia - at least not deliberately. I was explaining that people who get hot under the collar over someone burning a Quran, someone who thinks all Ancient Egyptians were all black, and someone who wants to have gender-affirming care are quite likely to vote for similar political parties at the moment - because, despite obviously distinct interests, they have the same political enemies and a similar goal of challenging existing institutions to some degree. This isn’t a hot take. It’s practically frozen given leftists reached it in the 1970s at the absolute latest.

... or because there are two parties in the US, one of which a party with tight disciplinary and ideological control on behalf of a reactionary segment of capital, and the other which is an overstuffed big tent containing the entirety of the rest of American political discourse. Voting for the same party is a terrible signifier of ideological affinity, especially in the US.

[Senkaku]

https://www.parapraxismagazine.com/arti ... n-men-want <<< I think this could’ve used tighter editing in places, or possibly I’m just not bright enough to appreciate all of it, but an interesting assessment of the sexuality and masculinity of contemporary Western fascists/far-right ideologues. Starting from the incident of Nick Fuentes saying fucking women is kinda gay, it outlines how the right-authoritarian conception of masculinity and desire means men can’t be attracted to traits that are attributed as either masculine or feminine, they’re only allowed to engage with sex from the framework of expressing power and domination and advancing “the replication of the nation”— anything else, any expression of desire, complicates and undermines their public image and inner concept of their manhood. I think this ties into earlier conversations around the motivations of people who commit hate crimes against LGBT people and how fear of their own desires can lead to violence; it can also lead, often within the very same people, to a withdrawal from any kind of healthy sexuality or expressions of desire.

[Samicana]

Yeah, but this has kinda been happening for a while.

I'm a queer person from a conservative area, and this is nothing new. Yes, Republicans are now targeting us legally on a state and national level, but this has been happening for a while, I honestly feel like the only change is that queer people in liberal areas are finally realizing that a large number of people in the country hate them.

I've literally spent my entire life trying to justify my existence, and I'm still one of the lucky ones. I'm from a socially conservative town in New Hampshire, my life would have been much, much, harder had I grown up in TN or AL.

[Fahran]

... or because there are two parties in the US, one of which a party with tight disciplinary and ideological control on behalf of a reactionary segment of capital, and the other which is an overstuffed big tent containing the entirety of the rest of American political discourse. Voting for the same party is a terrible signifier of ideological affinity, especially in the US.

That’s largely a rephrasing of what I’ve described, minus a description of the function of each respective coalition. It also pretty much applies to any political system where a single ideology isn’t dominant. Israel has coalitions despite its dumpster fire of a party system.

But there’s not really a need to rehash any of this, so…