Part II:
The debate:
Notice he @’s FIRE, where I work, with claims of slander (never mind slander is spoken while libel is written), as if trying to get me in trouble or fired. This is precisely the disgusting kind of tactics we’ve all come to expect from woke activists.
Respectfully brother, it only seems more clear to me now that I did not misunderstand you. But let’s break this down just in case.
You said X will happen. Namely, if people who oppose identity politics support Zionism, “we will lose” because the woke left will “smell this hypocrisy a mile away.” I replied, who cares what the woke left thinks?
You then claimed I misunderstood you because if X happens, Y will result. Namely, the woke left will ‘point out the hypocrisy and make it clear to all watching.’
Pointing out this hypocrisy will become the woke left’s “greatest weapon,” you added, “and they will win.”
So I was correct, you did in fact say X will happen, and then proved it by explaining that your main concern here is the result of X happening.
But we needn’t go back-and-forth on this. If you want to put the focus on Y, I am happy to oblige, and in fact I agree that’s a better place to put it, so thanks for the redirection.
But my view remains unchanged. Yes, you are right that the woke left will allege hypocrisy, fill the comments below with accusations to that effect, third-party viewers will see them, and some will be persuaded. I will give you all of that.
But again I say, who cares what these people think? The woke left supports a litany of malevolent causes, most of which I noted above, and Americans have become so sick of it that even many liberals ended up voting for the very person they had spent years hate-posting about. That’s how much they despise this stuff. And the electoral college now has a not-insignificant Republican bias that will seriously bruise Democratic chances at the White House for the next decade or so, as data scientist David Shor has noted.
Another point Shor makes, though everyone has noticed it by. now, is that despite Republican rhetoric on racial conflict, nonwhite voters did not go blue in higher numbers, as one might have expected. In fact, it appears the reverse happened. And given Democrats’ post-election lamentations about how this merely proves that Americans are super racist, I see zero signs of lessons being learned, so we can reasonably expect Republican power to grow further still.
In conclusion, the idea that we ought to fear a mob of psychopathic narcissists because they will accuse Zionists of hypocrisy and convince enough people to “win” is not a persuasive argument when their influence is dying faster than DEI.
Not only am I not at all concerned about third-party viewers hearing what the woke left says, but it may surprise you to learn that I think not enough people have heard the gospel. If I had my way, I would broadcast their remarks as far and wide as humanly possible because I think the greatest weapon against the woke left is to hand the woke left a giant microphone so that they can tell everyone precisely what they think about white people, men, women, Jews, Christians, Israel, America, the West, police, soldiers, CEOs, and so on.
But if I may, in the name of civil discourse, let me offer this steelman: If you can find a way to make this argument about liberals instead of progressives, i.e. about the moderate left instead of the woke left, then you'll have me up at night—and then your argument will inspire the kind of bone-chill I think you were going for—except I don’t see any way this can be applied to the moderate left, and the idea that we might lose the woke left is like telling a moderate Republican they might lose the racist right. Boo hoo.
Now let’s see if he engages with any of my points above. Spoiler: nope!
I stand corrected, though in my defense, I did make clear at the very top in multiple posts that I read anti-Zionist white identitarian as woke left, and you said you meant both, so thank you for clarifying, and since I’ve given you my thoughts on one, here are my thoughts on the other—everything I said about the woke left is only more true of the woke right, and for the same reasons.
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by woke right, but I see it as essentially a fascist movement, minus the altruistic window dressing that the woke left used to capture so many hearts, and therefore minus any of the cultural influence, particularly as the woke right is already being excommunicated to a degree.
Additionally, and more directly to your point, I fail to see the hypocrisy in being a Jewish nationalist while also opposing fascist and antisemitic movements, whether they be of the left or right. It seems like you’re saying these are all identity politics, which is of course true, so if you’re in favor of Jewish IP but not Nazi IP, you’re a hypocrite. And I disagree.
You’re punching at wind with some assumptions about my understanding of identitarianism, political socialization, and anti-IP, not to mention that to say the woke left has been “more specific than just opposing fascism or antisemitism” is a bit unfair because it is fact both those those things and I never suggested there was nothing more to the story.
But again, can you explain this hypocrisy? Is it as I assumed, that if you support Jewish IP but not right-wing or left-wing IP, then you only support IP when it suits you and therefore you are a hypocrite, or something like that?
So support of a Jewish state but not a Nazi state is hypocrisy? That’s like saying that because I oppose Nazi politics but not Danish politics, I’m a hypocrite.
Okay, I’m sorry. I did skip over “If one claims to oppose identity politics.” Not because I was being obtuse but because I find the technicality unserious, particularly since none of the people you listed above oppose identity politics in the way that you claim, and I think you know already know this.
Specifically, none of them have ever said anything that should make you think they oppose identity politics so broadly as to include Zionism, the Civil Rights movement, women’s suffrage, or disability rights. They are not using the term is the strict literal sense that you are when you examine their remarks, so it makes no sense to talk about hypocrisy in the context of opposing literally all identity politics.
Yes, some folks say things like, “identity politics are bad,” and then we can do some bad faith interpretation and try to catch them on a trumped-up procedural victory by arguing in ackshually rhetoric that they’re hypocrites because this techincally includes things they support, but that would very obviously be a straw man.
I wonder, what would happen if you steel-manned or star-manned their positions?
If I say in 2023 that I hate wokeness, this means the far-left, and if it is later pointed out that the right can be woke too, you cannot use this to go back and pick apart what I said unless you're willing to discard the spirit of my message in favor of the letter, which is a great way to, as you say, deliberately misunderstand people.
So until you can provide evidence that Kisin, Weiss, or whoever else may be on your list actually meant the kind of perfectly totalizing definition you have in mind, I am not sure what to add here. But let's park that and go back to your main point.
A bunch of neo-Nazi fascists are going to accuse classical liberals of hypocrisy because they support the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, and because these people hate Jews. So when liberals express their support for Israel, particularly liberals of Jewish ancestry like Kisin, Weiss, or myself, they will be targeted by racist buffoons and labeled hypocrites, as well as sundry other names I care not to list.
And this is supposedly concerning because if we do not capitulate to these Nazis and surrender our principles and our belief in civil liberties, liberal democracy, and Enlightenment values—then “they will win.” I understand you do not believe Israel represents the things I just listed, but I am not debating facts here, just the position that you are critiquing. And while I share your fear at the prospect, I laugh at the probability.
But let me end with where we agree, and correct me if I miss a step. We are both free speech liberals, we both love democracy and peace, we both want happiness and security for the children on both sides of this horrific conflict in the Middle East, we both despise bigotry in any manifestation, we both oppose all the malicious forms of identity politics, and we both support the form that we personally consider to be healthy, though our own tallies there may differ.
And yet when I hear folks say they oppose identity politics, I am generally not confused by what they mean, and I presume that if pressed by even the strictest definition, they could probably navigate the denotation without having to sacrifice the connotation.
Now I have made painfully clear that you cannot quote people saying, “identity politics is bad” and then argue that they meant every conceivable form unless that’s what they said or meant. Otherwise, you’re a total bad actor. But hilariously, here is his reply.
But wait, he’s not done dishonestly quoting people.
Jake, did you just decide to not read anything I wrote in my last post? Please go back and read it, or if you like, I can repeat below or even expand. No hard feelings, after all, you showed me the same patience. But this “gotcha” that you think you have is an illusion rooted in a simple logical fallacy.
And the name of that fallacy is equivocation. Once, no harm no foul. But pressed, it’s total bad faith. We don’t have Kisin and Weiss present but you have me, and are claiming I’m the perfect example of what you mean, so in the name of good faith, park the gotcha tactics and attempt to understand what I mean, as I did for you.
He never does. In other words, I am telling him he’s completely missing my point, and even though he spent pages harping on me for missing his, he simply doesn’t care. Instead, this is when his partner kicks open the door.
Every time I engage you, you instantly resort to immature insults, and the discussion never rises above exactly the kind of thing that makes social media such a nightmare. Carry on.
This is borderline unhinged given that I made multiple attempts to understand him correctly—and ultimately conceded—but when the tables were turned, he ignored me and instead his partner jumped in to insult me while he sat back giving applause.
Apparently, he “can’t take a single L” after a thread where he repeatedly ignored my points and then concludes, after I bent over backwards to make sure I understood him, that I am a dishonest person. Because that’s how dishonest people behave.
Moreover, I never said she has no admirable traits. That’s an outright lie. I don’t even know her. I only know that she is incredibly rude and behaves unintelligently whenever I engage her. But of course, I do not therefore assume this is how she behaves to everyone in her life.
So remember, listen to your harshest critics most of all—up until you realize they have no value to offer you, keep it simple, and above all, keep it civil. But also, make sure your opponent agrees to the way you characterize their statements before moving forward. That’s a good rule in any debate, but also just plain common sense. Are you trying to dishonestly catch people up or truly understand their position? Because otherwise, you’re probably being a dishonest pseudo-intellectual.
The Radicalist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theradicalist.com/subscribe
