There used to be a saying that the right thinks the left is wrong, and the left thinks the right is evil. It may well be that substantial portions of both sides think the other is evil now. It’s pretty common for right-wingers to say the left is deliberately trying to destroy society: they can’t come up with any other explanation for the - in their view - perverse and destructive policies their political opponents support.
Very possible. Purity policing is policing, and I guess can serve a purpose in keeping a group ideologically aligned. But I’ve been seeing a lot more complaints of purity policing, cancel culture etc on the right since Trump became president again. So I don’t know if it’s more helping to keep his bloc together, or tearing it apart at this point.
It’s funny that everyone here is so convinced right-wingers don’t see anything outside their bubble, when they are equally sure it’s the other way around - that all mainstream media is liberal, and gives every story they publish a liberal framing, so those on the left just never see anything that would contradict their beliefs. I guess the truth is that both are in a bubble to a certain extent.
Except that we all know what the oppression pyramid is. No, Dean doesn’t literally believe in a pyramid of oppression you can find in a progressive textbook or pamphlet, but this whole drama started because Zee dared to push back against criticism from people who were in a more oppressed class than her.
Well I can honestly tell you that I’m shocked to have found a written and concise summary of the events that transpired, that aren’t some crazy conspiracy theorist reddit post. It’s very atypical for this community and the content surrounding it; they just generally don’t do things that way, in my experience.
No, not really. I said no one literally believes in a pyramid of oppression on a chart. But the behavior that phrase alludes to occurred aplenty.
Have you considered the possibility that where both sides see the other as wrong, one of those views might be accurate? The left seem much more aware of what the right-wing media report and how it correlates to actual reality than the right are of what the non-right-wing media (I’m not even going to say “left-wing media” because it’s not an even balance) report and how it correlates to actual reality.
Sure, there are left-wing bubbles and left-wingers disconnected from the real world. But pretty much the entire American right-wing are currently in a very small and reality-averse bubble, whereas most everyone else…isn’t.
Who, exactly, is “they”? Who is “this community”? Is it college student progressives? Or is it “progressives” as a general class, that don’t generally do things this way?
We genuinely do not. With some explanation, I have a better sense of what’s being talked about, but at first I thought this was some right-wing snarl word that Charlie Kirk et al apply to progressives, like DEI and Politically Correct and CRT and Woke, that doesn’t really have a meaning but that they pretend are what progressives spend all their time talking about.
I’m assuming from context the “oppression pyramid” is the view that some groups are “more oppressed” than others and therefore, I dunno, more entitled to complain about it? It seems to be something DT believes is real. Or assumes that others adhere to for some reason.
So consider an alternative claim: instead of “Progressives spend significant time ordering the oppression pyramid,” the claim becomes, “In some instances, especially among college-age leftists, some assholes will silence other people by claiming that, as a member of a relatively privileged group, another leftist shouldn’t have a voice in a particular discussion, and should be humiliated for speaking up.”
The first claim reads like patent nonsense to me. The second claim is definitely something I’ve seen on multiple occasions, and I hate it and argue against it when I see it. And when I speak against it, I generally have company, including other people on the left, including people from relatively oppressed groups.
Progressives my age or younger. Fans of online progressive content creators like Dean & company, which is the dominant progressive space for that age group.
The only problem with this phrasing is the idea that the problem is some assholes weaponizing being members of an oppressed class.
That’s not the real problem. Obviously, it is problematic, and it sucks that people behave that way. But if they did, and everyone else laughed at them, then it wouldn’t really be an issue.
Since any ideology, no matter how well intentioned, will attract some bad actors, you can never stop everyone from weaponizing their group’s historical oppression in a bad faith manner. The question is what the community’s response is.
To look at the specific example, this Peyton guy is clearly a bad faith actor, and it’s a problem that he behaves the way he does. But if Peyton did what he did and got no traction, your summary would be accurate:
If that was the case, I wouldn’t be complaining. Peyton is a progressive asshole - who cares? There are assholes in any ideological group.
The problem is that Peyton’s narrative swept through the fan base with such vigor that all the content creators involved had to fall in line.
And yeah, Conservatives do this too; but if they want to eat Vivek Ramaswamy alive for supporting H-1B visas, that weakens MAGA, and I’m happy about that.
The “oppression pyramid” is, AFAICT, a right wing fantasy strawman version of intersectionality. What they get wrong, and my hypothesis is they get this wrong because so many right wingers can’t help but see almost everything in terms of a hierarchy, is that there’s no hierarchy of privilege or challenges or discrimination or anything like that, but rather (according to intersectionality) various categorizations and groupings and societal phenomena can intersect in complex and unpredictable ways, and should be considered and studied with regards to public policy.
It’s more like “among progressives aka social leftists, especially college aged ones, it’s fairly widely accepted that treating people differently depending on their relative position on various axes of oppression vs privilege is the correct and moral thing to do”. This would extend to who can have a meetup specifically for their group: a meetup for black women is fine, one for white men would be completely unacceptable. Who has to care about hurting other people’s feelings: a black woman on the call said some very insulting things to Zee, including what I’m pretty sure are racialised insults, but that was fine because Zee is white. Who is vulnerable to harm: Zee complained that calling the tour disorganised was harming the people of colour who were working behind the scenes. She did not say it was harming her, or any other white person. Who gets representation: it’s widely accepted that oppressed groups need to be represented by and hear from people of the same race/gender etc, but god forbid white men might be more likely to listen to someone like them.
I think there are posters here who would defend at least some of these positions, even if they wouldn’t endorse banning someone from speaking up at all.
I have seen, over my life, the right calling anyone opposing the Vietnam War cowardly traitors; the right calling anyone favoring LGBTQ rights depraved perverts, starting back when LG was the only part of that spectrum they were talking about – I could go on. There’s nothing new about people on the right calling people on the left evil.
It does seem to me that it used to be a lot less common for Republicans to call Democrats in general evil. Of course, the Democratic party used to have a large right wing, and the Republican party a large left wing; and before that yet they were the other way around entirely. But during much of my life both parties were mixed, which probably kept the name-calling on that basis down.
I don’t. Never heard of it before; and, to the extent that I think I’ve guessed its meaning from this discussion, it seems to me to be a massive misinterpretation of anything that’s actually happening.
It’s not a pyramid, because the same person can be both more and less privileged in various categories at the same time, and most people are. And also because the amount of shit that disadvantaged groups have had to take isn’t ordered in some neat permanent order of ranking.
Didn’t read that way to me. Read to me as if she insisted on sticking her nose into a family fight against the wishes of the people she claimed to be supporting.
I didn’t read that part, if it was part of your quotes. – I just looked, and it wasn’t.
Yeah, I’m opposed to bodyshaming insults in general, and to gendered insults in general. But was that what Zee called her on? Because what you did quote said:
which doesn’t appear to be a reaction against being called names, or even to mention that; but instead appears to be d an insistence on wanting to jump in to defend people who were telling her not to do any such thing. And what I see there is the guy who insists on hassling somebody who he thinks disrespected the woman he came to the bar with, when she’s telling him that that’s not what happened and to stay out of it because he’s only going to make matters worse. That guy is being an asshole – not only to everybody else in the bar, but in particular to the woman he’s claiming to defend.
Everyone else on the call basically ignored this rant. As far as we know, no one called Ice out on it afterwards, either. Only Zee was accused of racism during the call.
If Zee had told her she didn’t know anything about organization, then the first part of that, while profane, is a sensible answer. There are people on these boards who insist on being able to use “fucking” routinely. I have no idea what the ordinary language in use by the group having that discussion is or was, or what the rules of that group were about it.
The part about not putting Black people at the frontline of the website might be also. I don’t know who was doing what work, or who was readily visible and credited on the website for doing it, or whether the “frontline” of the website was at all about who was doing what.
The next to last line is indeed pure rant. And the attitude of the whole thing is indeed rant – but had Zoe actually told her that she didn’t know anything about organization, and had she in fact successfully organized quite a batch of stuff?
Nope, not at all. She did start a sentence with “I’m telling you this because you may not know” but Ice and friends cut her off before finding out what she thought they may not know, so I guess we’ll never know.
The idea that it was “how to organize” is a totally spurious assumption made by some of the people on the call, and also something Zee denied on the call, but of course, by then Ice and others were in pure rant mode.
Zee did no such thing. When she first spoke, Zee said this to everyone:
And then, it sounds like the comments on the chat were implying no one there had organised anything, and someone accused Zee of saying this. And Zee denied it, and repeated that she had said the above. And then this ‘Ice’ woman starts attacking Zee.
Whatever the attitude of the group towards generalised profanity and insults, this bit is pretty clearly racist:
Yet unlike Zee’s microaggressions, no one said anything about it. It was just ignored and accepted.