Categories like ‘POC’, ‘queer’, ‘woman’, etc are valid in all the same ways as the category of the ‘proletariat’. They have as much basis in reality as the conception of the working class, and it is not just about what one identifies as; it’s about what one exists as, what position one is travelling to this ‘new world’ from.
And would it not be foolish to posit that it, when travelling to a place, where one originates from is ‘not REALLY important’?
The base structure / superstructure bipolar dichotomy is ridiculous. Very clearly, society is a CULTURAL thing subject to MATERIAL conditions. It’s not an either / or matter, and neither is more important. To even try to rank them is as baseless as finding north of the north pole.
This reductionism, this strange drive to dismiss all things cultural or symbolic as having “no material basis” and thus no “real” relevance in radical praxis is patently absurd.
The irony is that even the reductionists know this to be true, that cultural things like ‘respect’ have a great deal of effect on our lived experiences.
Culture is real, and we all fuckin’ know it. Cut the “Anything immaterial is baseless” shenanigans.
one of the many problems with the “Hitler was a person” post is there are people that have literally made Hitler into a monster instead of figuratively (which he is). It’s easier for them to not think of Hitler as a human because then they won’t have to admit that anyone, including people they trust/like (modern politicians, police officers, the military) are capable of mass atrocities. It’s easier to build one guy up as the big bad so the comparably smaller hate based crimes don’t look as bad and maybe even in some light they’re justifiable (I’ve been told by many-a white person that police brutality “isn’t a big deal”). The fact of the matter is the only different between Hitler and people and the Chief of police is Hitler had the support and/or the silence of the masses. All the people that get mad at protesters and social science majors and “SJWs” and anyone else that wants to sit down and have real fucking talk about whatever issue is on hand don’t realize that they’re actively contributing to genocide. There are no innocent bystanders in genocide. I don’t give a fuck if you weren’t the one to pull the trigger. You saw it happen and you didn’t say anything about it. You enabled it and you’re just as guilty.
Jah. As I keep sayin’, we make mythical monsters of monstrous men, and that is dangerous. Society cannot be allowed to wipe its hands of the travesties it not only hosts but enables if not engenders.
The function of ideology is not to manipulate people from thinking critically, it’s making them believe they ARE thinking critically, while embedding it’s own biases and presuppositions into the felt experience of being a critical thinker.
What about reflexive ‘ideology’?
well I’m talking about ideology in the social, structural sense, not in the sense of educated positions a person takes, and yeah I p much agree with the reflexive stance
Nah, I get you. I did tag this under ‘sociology’. ^_^
When thinking of exceptions to ‘prove’ the rule, I was thinkin’ of revolutionary praxis, which largely structures the thoughts and activities of radicals.
But, yeah, you mean like conservative, repressive ideology. Wrd.
The function of ideology is not to manipulate people from thinking critically, it’s making them believe they ARE thinking critically, while embedding it’s own biases and presuppositions into the felt experience of being a critical thinker.
What about reflexive ‘ideology’?
Is the mind thought, or is the mind grey matter? False dichotomy. The mind is the activity of neurons.
People call me radical because I think that sexism and homophobia and racism still exist and that’s fucked up
but like
why is that “radical”
shouldn’t that just be like
“basic human decency”?
I understand the sentiment, but my thing when people say this is that, yes, it IS ‘radical’, and it IS extremist. They’re both relational terms. More importantly, there is nothing inherently wrong with being extreme.
The idea that being radical or extremist is inherently problematic, besides just being basic propaganda, comes from a cognitive bias know as ‘aversion to extremes’ or ‘extreme aversion’:
most people will go to great lengths to avoid extremes. People are more likely to choose an option if it is the intermediate choice.
