How would you define the group identity politics among radical leftists, then? Because it's not classical liberalism by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't agree that neo-Marxism and post-modern liberalism are diametrically opposed.
Oh, you're one of those. No wonder you're so hung up on definitions, rather than realpolitik. Don't you see what's happening with leftism in the United States? It shares an awful lot in common with Marxist identity politics. Even if you don't agree with how I put things, your dismissal of the entire framework betrays a deep ignorance on your part.
I'm not a member of the right, I'm a member of the centre... but thanks for revealing your own partisan leaning. Only a leftist would make such a ridiculous accusation. You just can't handle the fact that someone might be well read on a subject and come to a different conclusion than you, which is why you have to characterize an opponent as being incompetent or somehow lacking. Typical tactics of the left. You can't handle a mature discussion so you attack the character of your opponent instead.
Did you see me personally attack anyone in this thread? Nope. I discussed ideas and facts, not individuals. This thing you're doing where you make it personal, that's all that leftists do. They can't argue information. They look at someone's personally identifying characteristics and attack those instead. Neo-Marxism at its finest.
Their whiteness, their maleness, their "privilege" status. Basically, if they are low on the hierarchy as determined by patriarchy theory and intersectional social justice, their opinions are rendered null. Can't count the number of times I've seen well-spoken, educated intellectuals get called fascists just because they are white.
Finally, a paragraph of substance I can actually respond to. You should have just written this in the first place instead of your entire preamble about how educated and superior you are; how I'm a member of the right; and your various other character defamations. You'd look a lot more credible if you just stuck to that.
Ok, there are some things to parse here. "No one on the left is saying that we need to be like the borg collective except black and trans." I don't think you understand what I'm talking about because you keep referring to academic/intellectual framings of the subject, while I'm referring to the social phenomena we are seeing play out in the activist world. No one from the left is going to outright say they support group assimilation, but their politics play out that way. As long as someone judges the colour of your skin, sex, gender, ability, etc. status before listening to a credible argument you have to make, that is radical leftist ideology... no different than how Marxism played out in Russia and China. Particularly, it started with the educational institutions, like we're seeing in the United States. Ideology was peddled before individual thought. The school administrations became hijacked, intellectuals silenced with internal policy, and then anyone who didn't fall in line was purged. Eventually the student body fanned out into the populace and made sure that the general public kowtowed to the ideology: party before individuality. We are seeing many elements of this play out in the United States now. If you don't conform to the ideology, then you get labelled a fascist and they won't even let you speak. They will drown you out, disrupt lectures, disrupt discourse. That's how neo-Marxism operates.
I'm not even talking about economics. I'm talking about social control. Leftists don't have enough brains to form economic policy. This is about feminism and sociology evolving to a toxic platform that is partitioning society into group based ideologies of conformity. They do this through toxic patriarchy theory, gender deconstruction theory, and post-modern feminism. When established identities are erased, then words start to lose their meaning, and then words can mean anything. THAT is the danger. Have you ever tried arguing with a leftist? It's impossible. They will just make you the enemy no matter what you say. The very words you write will be warped to mean something else. That is what Marxists did and it's frightening. It also runs directly counter to individualism. The radical left and the radical right share this in common: they use group identifiers to usurp control. The difference is that the radical right's values are based on traditional social patterns remaining the same, which is also problematic.
The other thing is that you are totally wrong if you think post-modern/neo-liberalism is incompatible with neo-Marxism. Neo-liberalism is a globalist philosophy that is totally compatible with the aims of radical leftism because it sees their version of social liberation as harmonizing influence on all societies.
Your failure here is to distinguish liberalism from radical leftism. I am talking about the latter. I am NOT talking about political liberals. I am talking about radical leftists. I mentioned post-modern liberalism because it includes radical leftism, although leftists tend to warp liberalism into something a bit otherly.
That's not true, not in my experience or the experience of many. Leftists don't debate facts on their merits, they debate them based on who is presenting them, i.e. their identity. You're stating things as they SHOULD be, rather than how they ARE. If it were merely a matter of illegitimacy being tied to level of ignorance, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Feminist patriarchy theory, gender deconstructionist theory, and intersectional social justice theory are levraged as a means to control discourse and thought, and not merely as a means to ascertain ignorance. Many, many POC and trans commentators who have conservative leanings are noting this, not just white folks. The ideology behind oppression is being taken to utmost extremes to silence anyone who shows dissent against the theoretical body politic I just mentioned, mostly being driven by feminist academics.
It happens all the time. I have experienced it many times. I'm not asking you to address it. My posts are not actionable. They are my experiences and observations, which you minimize as Jordan Peterson fandom, lol.
And now you have devolved back to your true form... personal attacks. This is a very typical leftist tactic... to find any slight, no matter how small, and blow it out of proportion. You'll notice that I said many times that I do believe trans people exist, but that the matter is complicated. I don't think a pregnant "man" with female anatomy is just like any other man/father, anymore than I think there are only two genders. Both statements are full of cognitive dissonance. The left is OK living with the cognitive dissonance of the first statement and the right is OK living with the cognitive dissonance of the second statement.
It's really entertaining to watch you grasp for any mere hypocrisy you can hyperinflate into some kind of ammunition against my character because you are totally failing at pitching your moral deficits to your audience. It's also really amusing to watch you imply that I'm a member of the right because you lack the acumen to understand nuance. It won't work on me, I see right through you.
Who am I to say this? I'm an intelligent, well-read, sovereign human being with the right to free speech.
