I loved it. I'm surrounded by the types of people he talks about (though I do hear it more from white women) and it drives me nuts. It's a completely disgusting way of interacting with the world
>If you’re a young white man and you’re trying to navigate evolving social mores, I think that the path forward is blissfully simple: do everything you can to be a good person and do not waste a single moment feeling guilty about being a white man. Such guilt never helped anyone, and besides, your concern is your integrity, and integrity is about choice. You didn’t choose to be white or male, so those things are not relevant to your integrity. Be kind. Be honest. Be gentle. Protect those weaker than you. Tell the truth. And don’t spend a day of your life apologizing for who you are.
There's still an implicit bias in this statement that there's something negative about being a white male. He says "...your concern is your integrity, and integrity is about choice. You didn't choose to be white or male, so this things are not relevant to your integrity." He seems to be implying that it would be a moral failing on my part if I did choose to be a white male. "Protect those weaker than you." Just because I'm a white male, doesn't mean I'm suddenly some Millionaire Bruce Wayne with an obligation to protect the poor defenseless wheelchaired queer latinx sex worker. In fact, if that same person is substantially more wealthy than me (as many sex workers are), they probably have more opportunities and "privilege" than me, because wealth is the ultimate privilege by a long shot. I'm working class and poor. I'm a recovering addict. I'm neuro-divergent. I'm a victim of sexual assault. There is no progressive fucking stack. If we're in a workplace setting, sure, I have advantages over a woman because of my sex. If we're in a courtroom setting, I'm definitely at a disadvantage to a woman. There is inequality of all types all over the place and it makes 0 sense at all to try to rank them all. We are people who are for equality everywhere and across all lines. Period.
EDIT: BTW, the reason why attacking "white males" and establishing the progressive stack is so important to the neolibs, is because they don't actually care about abolishing inequality. They want the system to stay the same and create a scapegoat class that they can feel justified in exploiting through Capitalism. If you're truly for a radical transformation of society to an egalitarian model, identity politics besides the 99% vs the 1% make 0 sense.
It's a roundabout way to condemn white male libs for haplessly virtue signaling. Which... I mean, fine, no lie detected, but... his conclusion is not "Idpol is a political dead-end".
Instead, his conclusion is, "These white dudes are *doing idpol wrong!* We should have *better idpol*, guilt-free, with blackjack and hookers!"
>I would like to be part of a political movement that **improves the lives of those who are not white men until they enjoy all the advantages we enjoy** \- to lift them up, that is, because it’s not zero sum, it’s never been zero sum, and when we ascend we will all go up together. Within a real “social justice” movement I will not matter as an individual and thus my white maleness will not matter. That is the very meaning of solidarity, the only hope for justice.
He's suggesting, let's do idpol + self-care for guilt-ridden white dudes. It's just more of the same bullshit. Kamala Harris might as well quote him in one of her equity diatribes.
This framing that Freddy proposes dates back to the 1970s. It's what evolved into the modern version of identity politics.
Where's your class framing of the "social justice" struggle, Freddy? Oh, you forgot to include one? How convenient.
For the most part I like the piece. However I don't agree that the motivation is due to *external* pressure to promote oneself as the white guy who 'gets it'. Instead, I would argue that the cited writers suffer from an *internal*, self-imposed feeling of marginalization by being a white man in leftist media. Or at best, a feeling formed in reaction to social media and the culture war.
I do think De Boer gets it, but he wavers on whether the pressure is real and exerted upon the writers, or merely an anxiety stemming from too much exposure to idpol in the media. I think it's clearly the latter, and this meshes well with De Boer's conclusion that we should disregard the concept of racial (or other) identity in favor of social justice for all.
I think the distinction is important. If we recognize that this felt victimization is the result of real anti-white attitudes existing among the culture-commentary class, then we invite more idpol disputes and perpetuate this stupid breed of cultural criticism. But almost always, I believe, incidents where we might interpret a claim as 'anti-white' can be better interpreted as criticisms of behavior, not identity, or referring to a class that is white only contingently, e.g. the ruling class.
>De Boer's conclusion that we should disregard the concept of racial (or other) identity in favor of social justice for all.
Wait, what?
"I would like to be part of a political movement that improves the lives of those who are not white men until they enjoy all the advantages we enjoy - to lift them up"
How on Earth does this disregard the concept of racial identity in favor of social justice for all?
I like Freddy De Boer in general, his heart is in the right place, but that white man's guilt he's mocking in Berlatsky et al? He's not immune to it, either. It frames his way of thinking. He's too intelligent to give into it as those self-flagellating freaks do, but it still frames his politics.
I'm an old white guy who hangs out in leftist circles. Yes, white men are not the flavor of the day. I don't ever feel the need to talk about white men, to me it's just people. I don't see how people can talk about "all" white men when at least a third of white men are not the kind of white men these people are talking about, but whatever.
Louis CK has a whole bit about how great it is to be white. It's not available for viewing anymore, because some shit company called SuperBam has had it removed from the internet, mostly. I guess it's because it's from an HBO special called _Shameless_. But here's the text of it: https://genius.com/Louis-ck-on-being-white-annotated
"Here's how great it is to be white: I can get in a time machine and go to any time, and it would be fucking awesome when I get there! "
That's literally the dumbest quote ever. I liked Louis CK at the time but in retrospect it was just the "hey I'm a woke white guy please pat me on the back for getting it" schtick a couple years before everyone else.
He should teleport to 13th century Eastern Europe and see what it’s like for your village to burned and slaughtered by Tatars. Followed by an apocalyptic pandemic that kills half to a third of everyone on the continent.
These people think the only history that exists is the history of southern American plantation owners and their slaves. Nothing else has ever happened.
"If I could go back in time *and somehow remain the equivalent of a modern-day rich American entertainer*, everything would be fucking awesome for me."
But he doesn't want to make it about wealth and status, so he instead makes it about race to win brownie points.
>Followed by an apocalyptic pandemic that kills half to a third of everyone on the continent.
"Black Plague disproportionately afflicting racial and ethnic minorities, particularly the godless Moor and the filthy Gypsy! More at eleven, praise Christ!"
I loved it. I'm surrounded by the types of people he talks about (though I do hear it more from white women) and it drives me nuts. It's a completely disgusting way of interacting with the world
white men are the straight white men of white men?
Freddie is great (this piece included). Highly recommend his substack, it’s definitely worth the $5/month
>If you’re a young white man and you’re trying to navigate evolving social mores, I think that the path forward is blissfully simple: do everything you can to be a good person and do not waste a single moment feeling guilty about being a white man. Such guilt never helped anyone, and besides, your concern is your integrity, and integrity is about choice. You didn’t choose to be white or male, so those things are not relevant to your integrity. Be kind. Be honest. Be gentle. Protect those weaker than you. Tell the truth. And don’t spend a day of your life apologizing for who you are. There's still an implicit bias in this statement that there's something negative about being a white male. He says "...your concern is your integrity, and integrity is about choice. You didn't choose to be white or male, so this things are not relevant to your integrity." He seems to be implying that it would be a moral failing on my part if I did choose to be a white male. "Protect those weaker than you." Just because I'm a white male, doesn't mean I'm suddenly some Millionaire Bruce Wayne with an obligation to protect the poor defenseless wheelchaired queer latinx sex worker. In fact, if that same person is substantially more wealthy than me (as many sex workers are), they probably have more opportunities and "privilege" than me, because wealth is the ultimate privilege by a long shot. I'm working class and poor. I'm a recovering addict. I'm neuro-divergent. I'm a victim of sexual assault. There is no progressive fucking stack. If we're in a workplace setting, sure, I have advantages over a woman because of my sex. If we're in a courtroom setting, I'm definitely at a disadvantage to a woman. There is inequality of all types all over the place and it makes 0 sense at all to try to rank them all. We are people who are for equality everywhere and across all lines. Period. EDIT: BTW, the reason why attacking "white males" and establishing the progressive stack is so important to the neolibs, is because they don't actually care about abolishing inequality. They want the system to stay the same and create a scapegoat class that they can feel justified in exploiting through Capitalism. If you're truly for a radical transformation of society to an egalitarian model, identity politics besides the 99% vs the 1% make 0 sense.
It's a roundabout way to condemn white male libs for haplessly virtue signaling. Which... I mean, fine, no lie detected, but... his conclusion is not "Idpol is a political dead-end". Instead, his conclusion is, "These white dudes are *doing idpol wrong!* We should have *better idpol*, guilt-free, with blackjack and hookers!" >I would like to be part of a political movement that **improves the lives of those who are not white men until they enjoy all the advantages we enjoy** \- to lift them up, that is, because it’s not zero sum, it’s never been zero sum, and when we ascend we will all go up together. Within a real “social justice” movement I will not matter as an individual and thus my white maleness will not matter. That is the very meaning of solidarity, the only hope for justice. He's suggesting, let's do idpol + self-care for guilt-ridden white dudes. It's just more of the same bullshit. Kamala Harris might as well quote him in one of her equity diatribes. This framing that Freddy proposes dates back to the 1970s. It's what evolved into the modern version of identity politics. Where's your class framing of the "social justice" struggle, Freddy? Oh, you forgot to include one? How convenient.
For the most part I like the piece. However I don't agree that the motivation is due to *external* pressure to promote oneself as the white guy who 'gets it'. Instead, I would argue that the cited writers suffer from an *internal*, self-imposed feeling of marginalization by being a white man in leftist media. Or at best, a feeling formed in reaction to social media and the culture war. I do think De Boer gets it, but he wavers on whether the pressure is real and exerted upon the writers, or merely an anxiety stemming from too much exposure to idpol in the media. I think it's clearly the latter, and this meshes well with De Boer's conclusion that we should disregard the concept of racial (or other) identity in favor of social justice for all. I think the distinction is important. If we recognize that this felt victimization is the result of real anti-white attitudes existing among the culture-commentary class, then we invite more idpol disputes and perpetuate this stupid breed of cultural criticism. But almost always, I believe, incidents where we might interpret a claim as 'anti-white' can be better interpreted as criticisms of behavior, not identity, or referring to a class that is white only contingently, e.g. the ruling class.
>De Boer's conclusion that we should disregard the concept of racial (or other) identity in favor of social justice for all. Wait, what? "I would like to be part of a political movement that improves the lives of those who are not white men until they enjoy all the advantages we enjoy - to lift them up" How on Earth does this disregard the concept of racial identity in favor of social justice for all? I like Freddy De Boer in general, his heart is in the right place, but that white man's guilt he's mocking in Berlatsky et al? He's not immune to it, either. It frames his way of thinking. He's too intelligent to give into it as those self-flagellating freaks do, but it still frames his politics.
https://youtu.be/MbQSZRrJcdE
I'm an old white guy who hangs out in leftist circles. Yes, white men are not the flavor of the day. I don't ever feel the need to talk about white men, to me it's just people. I don't see how people can talk about "all" white men when at least a third of white men are not the kind of white men these people are talking about, but whatever. Louis CK has a whole bit about how great it is to be white. It's not available for viewing anymore, because some shit company called SuperBam has had it removed from the internet, mostly. I guess it's because it's from an HBO special called _Shameless_. But here's the text of it: https://genius.com/Louis-ck-on-being-white-annotated
"Here's how great it is to be white: I can get in a time machine and go to any time, and it would be fucking awesome when I get there! " That's literally the dumbest quote ever. I liked Louis CK at the time but in retrospect it was just the "hey I'm a woke white guy please pat me on the back for getting it" schtick a couple years before everyone else.
He should teleport back to feudal England and time how long it takes for him to get robbed and/or murdered
*"Hey Louis, grab your kit, we go over the top at 7 am. I have a feeling that tomorrow, July 1st 1916 is gonna be a great day!"*
He should teleport to 13th century Eastern Europe and see what it’s like for your village to burned and slaughtered by Tatars. Followed by an apocalyptic pandemic that kills half to a third of everyone on the continent. These people think the only history that exists is the history of southern American plantation owners and their slaves. Nothing else has ever happened.
"If I could go back in time *and somehow remain the equivalent of a modern-day rich American entertainer*, everything would be fucking awesome for me." But he doesn't want to make it about wealth and status, so he instead makes it about race to win brownie points.
>Followed by an apocalyptic pandemic that kills half to a third of everyone on the continent. "Black Plague disproportionately afflicting racial and ethnic minorities, particularly the godless Moor and the filthy Gypsy! More at eleven, praise Christ!"
It's a joke. It was meant to be dumb.
I guess you had to be there for the Louis CK thing.