this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
15 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
460 readers
376 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s just another attempt to deliberately confuse people.
The right did it when we went after Milo Yiannopoulos, claiming that we were only targeting him because he was a gay Jew (which was very obviously not the reason). Some rightist dullard several years ago said that an interviewer only rolled his eyes at her because he was sexist. Now we’re seeing the right misportray our anticolonialism as ‘antisemitic’ and coming up with these horseshit reinterpretations of our very simple demands.
I think that they know that these are all bold-faced lies. They tell them in hopes of confusing innocent people who may be unacquainted with the contexts. Anybody with a fully functional brain can tell that calling a cissexist bore a ‘heinous loser’ is very obviously not an example of misogyny, but the context gets lost in the game of telephone that anticommunists love playing.
I actually do think theyre saying this in good faith, theyre just idiots. Their understanding of feminism is that it means uplifting and celebrating all women in all circumstances regardless of their actions or character. It’s why they hate it.
The essence of these arguments from the right is an opportunistic appropriation of liberal identity politics. Liberals already misunderstand identity politics, often flattening them to "minorities are right about everything" when minorities say something liberals agree with. Of course, this gets reduced to "all perspectives are valuable" when minorities say something liberals disagree with, if not just censorship. The reactionaries are just as capable of reading that pattern as anyone else, so they're just taking it and running with it.
Smarter liberals might be able to recognize that "minorities are right about everything" is clearly incorrect and obviously not a valid framework, so they'll argue against these reactionary tactics by making "all perspectives are valuable" universal. The problem for them is that reactionaries might be armed with examples of liberals shutting down discussion by pointing to identity (e.g. shutting down antizionists by saying Jewish voices are important, then flipping backwards when Jewish antizionists speak up)
The dialectical approach is to recognize that identity politics is only useful as it pertains to understanding a part of an individual's or group's perspective on an issue, but it must be held in conversation with everything else that's going on, the context of the conflict being discussed.
sartre on antisemites
Kind of curious, how do we all deal with these snakes when they try their semantic mind games?
Usually my whole thing just telling them “don’t play dumb” (something that has gotten me banned before lol.)