Originally a comment by themadtapper on Dissent of the day.
I don’t believe in an identity politics that seeks to remove structural oppression by forcing others to say things they may not want to say, or do things they may not want to do, or by ostracizing people for whatever-ism they are found guilty of.
Isn’t “ostracizing people for whatever-isms” precisely the remedy libertarians suggest in place of “forcing people to do things they may not want to do”? Don’t require restaurants to serve black people, just boycott them and let them know you won’t deal with racists! Don’t require Christians to serve gays, just boycott them and let them know you won’t deal with homophobes! Free market will work it’s invisible-hand magic and all the bigots will be gone!
.
What does he suggest in place of both force and ostracism? Does he think calm rational dialogue is going to make sexist jerks realize they shouldn’t harass women on the street or grope them on the subway? Does he think a friendly intervention is going to make frat boys realize they shouldn’t try to liquor up women so they can have their way with them? Does he think a polite tweet is going to make gamergaters realize they shouldn’t threaten to rape and murder women they disagree with? He says he doesn’t scorn feminism, but also seems to not want feminists to do anything that would actually change the status quo. Standard “conservative libertarian” indeed; only supporting equal rights as long as it doesn’t rock the boat. Fuck that noise. The boat is full of assholes. Dumping them out is a fine solution.
You can’t have it both ways, can you? If you’re against structural oppression, you have to be for at least one reasonable solution to the problem. If you’re against actually doing any of the many things that can help correct structural oppression, then you’re not really against structural oppression at all. Are you?
“I’m for a clean kitchen. I’m against forcing anyone to clean the kitchen. I’m against paying someone to clean the kitchen. I’m against me cleaning the kitchen. I’m against trying to coerce anyone to not make a mess in the kitchen in the first place. I’m against trying to force me to not make messes. I’m against trying to guilt trip myself or my wife to clean or even to avoid making messes.
Yes, I’m entirely for clean kitchens. I’m sure there’s a magic fairy and/or invisible hand of the free market that will be along shortly to load the dishwasher.”
I don’t think there is anything in his mind to replace it. This is because I think that the point of the position (what it seeks to do) is to reduce the political effectiveness of these particular people that are trying to change the behavior of others. It has to be emotionally satisfying, but that is all. There is no realistic, functional alternative solution because that is not the point.
I see shades of Nugent in here. Sullivan did not actually look at what WAM said, did, or is planning to do in any detail from what we can see and simply posted his hyperbole and exaggerated characterizations. Nugent did the same with respect to what people over here at FTB were saying. It was nothing but quotes of beginning or conclusion summaries (which are often characterizations) offered with outrage, or his own characterizations of what was here. There was no quoting of logic or reasoning followed by an explanation of why things were wrong or outrageous.
Assertions and emotions for forming packs of like-minded people are the only goal.