Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

[Pictured: Pat Buchanan's "Culture War Speech" at the 1992 Republican Convention] 

Chapter 4 zooms in on "previous American culture wars". It's easy to think of this past decade as so unique in its social media skin suit, but Nagle's comparison and contrast to previous culture wars kind of orients us in history a little bit. Pat Buchanan seems like such an iconic bigoted conservative crank:

Merit point towards intersectionality embedded in the reminders that gay rights and womens rights were part of the same post Cold War Red Scare in prior culture wars.

I wrote down William Jennings Bryan and Herbert Marcuse to google. I was interested in their little appearances in these chapters. Always use books as ciphers to discover new books!

I never really had Milo on my radar, and this book talks about him so much, and he sounds so annoying and ugly and i look forward to continuing not to think about him very much after being done with this book.

Chapter 4 felt like a kind of extension on the previous couple of chapters, ultimately tracking the roles of transgression and piousness has shifted around the political lanscape.

"4chan is also more of a product of the sexual revolution than of conservatism" (p. 64)

-

Then we start punching left! Attacking the gender fluid snowflakes like God intended!!!!

Someone mentioned in the first checkpoint thread that reading about these extremely online zietgeisty events in the early 2010s made them feel angry. Like dont remind me!!! I don't want to go back!!! We're beyond this!!!!!! 

I kind of felt that way about chapter 5. I have never loved what felt like the ineffectual excesses of well meaning leftists in Universities, but I have always had faith that these impulses will mature into a more useful form over time. Maybe with naïveté and bias cause that's where my empathy and allegiance lied, or still lies, on some level. I guess for the nature of reading this book I should buy Nagle's premise and feel self critical as a card carrying vessel of the Woke Mind Virus. I have 100% seen the sort of anti-social ahistorical oversensitive behaviour criticized here. 

I dont know what campuses are like now, and I'm not sure that messy leftwing hegemonic censorial speaker-cancelling university drama is the most important thing in the world. But I dont like thinking about it. It upsets me. I dont want to pick a side, it just all upsets me.

!!!!!!!!!!!!JORDAN PETERSON MENTION ON PAGE 80!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting to see some familiar faces throughout. Didn't know about Mark Fischer's moment critiquing Cancel Culture.  I haven't read Mark Fischer but people tell me to read this books all the god damn time. And I will!! Just give me a SEC.

Jonathan Haidt I have just recently been getting into because of his refocus on social media's impact on society in his fantastic After Babel Substack. I have never been into him previously, maybe because I vaguely registered him as an anti-woke professor and was just disinterested. But life is interesting and it moves around. At the moment he and I are perfectly aligned in our desire to see collective action and policy to limit phone use, limit social media, heal our minds and change our processes. He comes from a maybe more centrist-y position, and I from a kind of radical anti capitalist fervour about social media companies colonizing our minds, but we want the same things and have the same interests at the moment. I admire that he just identifies as "a-political" at this point. He's pointed himself at a good problem, and I'm very excited for his book on the subject to drop this year. 

Some of these other critiques of the left hold strong. Worship of weakness, failure to provide tangible solutions and alternatives, viciousness lurking underneath the moral intents. We've met em!

"The cult of suffering, weakness and vulnerability has become central to contemporary liberal identity politics..." (p. 73)

"And yet, amid all the vulnerability and self-humbling, members of these subcultures often behaved with extraordinary viciousness and aggression, like their anonymous Pepe-posting counterparts, behind the safety of the keyboard. (p. 74)

I do have to say I dont think I intuitively jive with Nagle's little thesis about "Creating Moral Scarcity". Maybe upon seeing a couple more examples I might see more value in this idea (I imagine it will come up again) but I kind of think the obvious truth is way less sophisticated. Soc media just makes people bitchy and angry and anxious, and reputation savaging is just kind of... fun? The mediums just invite people to be terrible and being terrible and fighting for social status is addictive.

I do think there's a broader leftist cultural issue with purity testing. I think the destruction of heroes and policing on consistency and exaggeration of harm is maybe an ugly misapplication of big ideas about systemic critique, which in theory is supposed to presume individuals are all actors with larger ideas and effects, and so in theory should shift collective focus to solving larger issues rather than judging individual purity of intent. But then it can be used instead to judge everyone and one by one cancel all imperfect allies. oops!

That's about all i'm gonna say here, cause I am soooo sleepy. Let me know what you think! Don't hold me to any opinions expressed here! I don't know anymore!!! Conscientious Objector to the Culture War!!!!!!!!!! GOTTA SHOOT THE PHONE THAT'LL SOLVE IT

Bigotry & Tone Policing Below!

Files

Comments

mirrahndah

My brain always momentarily confuses Jonathan Haidt with Johann Hari, who has also written a book about the decline of focus due to digital tech which I found to be a good read. I haven't read Haidt yet, but I do have his The Righteous Mind in my TBR - so if anyone has read it already and wants to share their thoughts, please do! I'm not sure about Nagle's "moral scarcity" thesis either - but I've tended to think the problem is a scarcity mindset in general, especially when it comes to moral judgements. What I think I'm trying to say is that it's not necessarily that people think there's only so much morality that can be shared among people but rather there's only so much compassion and care we (royal we) can extend to each other, so when someone fucks up we rip any compassion towards them away to give to someone "more deserving." But the truth is that we can still extend compassion to both. And I think this kind of comes from the "spoonies" thesis and the information overload in our lives that burns people out from feeling like they have to care about every bad thing going on in the world. We see this in comments sections about pop culture events where people say, "Why do you care so much about X Celebrity when there are people dying in X Country??" Like, why can't I care about both? One is cheap entertainment and the other is across the world from me and I ultimately can't do anything about either. What, am I supposed to just reserve my attention and care for only the highest order of social dilemmas? And don't even get me started on the right's scarcity mindset because that's literally their bread and butter. They convince their base that there aren't enough resources to support them AND marginalized communities, which leads to them blaming said communities for "stealing" resources like money, jobs, benefits, etc. and causes the people to fight each other instead of the system. It's easier to convince people to only care about themselves than to only care about the "correct" issues when no one can seem to agree on what those are in the first place. And it's made especially easy when social media enables the creation of individualized, targeted bubbles that encourage people to only care about themselves. Side note: I'm reading East of Eden for another book club and one of the things discussed in there is John Steinbeck's swing from being fairly socialist in his earlier writings to being very individualistic in East of Eden. Among the phenomenon that people tend to get more conservative as they grow older, another thought I've been trying to piece together is that both views are necessary. I think people need to be individualistic enough for self-expression/preservation and being able to question power structures and the status quo, but like we also have to care about society around us and the common good. I dunno, does that make me a centrist?

Evelyn G

The rise (or death) of subculture because of the internet seems to have had a massive influence on the way people perceive the world. In many ways the tech giants put up rigid barriers around thought and let everyone sit comfortably in their own bubble, but I think the more relevant truth is that it's sorted everyone out in to more extreme camps and has distilled hegemonic propaganda into high ABV liquor. Post-COVID, people in my family have grown increasingly conspiratorial and more extreme in their conservative beliefs and I think a large part of that is in social media raising fearful attention to non-issues like furries and drag queens. Like for some reason now Tucker Carlson (ugly) is now a house hold name in my Canadian Suburbia and I'm not sure he's ever said a useful (or beautiful) thing in his life. The change in culture is so tied to the way social media's rapid fire assault on the senses and it needs fresh ammunition every few seconds. The fearful reactionaries feel the need to point fingers at non-issues so that people can still feel that the world is going into the shitter but still insure that they wouldn't apply any material analysis to why.

Olive Nicole

It was such a fucking slog to get through chapter 4. These guys repeat the same vague talking points over and over, I’m bored of the fall of civilization and triggering the snowlibs I’ve just heard it all before. I’d rather look at tumblr drama. Tumblr liberals had stories, they cared about things, they posted the most mind blowing shit all the time and a lot of it was actually Good and changed my perspective for the better, and a lot of it was BAD, and I love bad things. The right wing doesn’t have Drama like that, only outrage. The idea that “liberals don’t care about politics anymore, just bearing witness to suffering” got me thinking about Tumblr Liberalism and fandom. They’re inseparable. Tumblr has always been first and foremost a fandom space. Strife and hardship are integral to literally every story ever, it’s easy to become obsessed with it, and it’s easy to think of real life suffering like fiction when it’s wedged between Sherlock edits and Hamilton fanart. 4chan being faced with this chose to think of reality like fiction, Tumblr thought of fiction being as real as anything.

Josh Foreman

Nagle does that thing where authors try to trace cultural trends backward in history, but to be honest I’m so tired of that. I just don’t believe any of it. History is too full of cherries to make it possible NOT to cherry pick to make a point. I enjoy this process only so far as I’m learning something new about history, but not at all for the case they are trying to make. But my biggest gripe is Ch 5 where she does that classic liberal tut-tut both-sides thing at the end. Something like, Well if the left hadn’t gone SO FAR and become all illiberal and censorious then the alt right might not have felt a need to do the same. And yeah, that may be true. But it speaks nothing at all to the justice or ethical concerns that drove the left to go SO FAR. Without that part of the equation it just comes off as mindless knee-jerk both-sidesing. and for GOD'S SAKE CJ... READ HAIDT'S 'The Righteous Mind', or at least my synopsis, full of helpful pictures. It's so so SO part of your project. https://joshuaforeman.blogspot.com/2016/01/book-musings-righteous-mind-why-good.html

azalea water

i keep trying to act light-hearted, but fuck me this book is a L O T. -CONSERVATISM- “the whole online sensibility is more in the spirit of foulmouthed comment-thread trolls than it is of bible study” (p51) I think ‘conservative’ is a really weird word in 2024. i’m British, so forgive my understanding of American politics, but it seems like the American and British ideas of what ‘conservative’ means are two branches of a similar tree in right-wing politics. in the UK, when you say ‘conservative’ - you mean a tory. you’re talking about Sunak, vote leave and privatisation. the party has a lot of connotations with upper-middle class upbringings. think “old money”. at least in the circles I’m in, there’s this large emphasis on class and detachment from the mainstream as the defining characteristics of a conservative politician. whereas, whenever i see Americans talk about conservatives, there seems to be a much stronger connotation with a kind of evangelical christianity that doesn't seem as present in British politics. American conservatives seem to have a very strong tie between church and state and this insistence on a very narrow reading of the bible, Jesus and God as moral absolutes on every issue. (I should clarify that I myself am religious) the alt-right of 2017 just muddles the word ‘conservative’ even more. they’re definitely on a similar axis, but it’s a very different style of right wing politics than the British or American approach. the kinda movement represented by someone who will put a poll on twitter asking what’s worse: “(a) feminism or (b) cancer” (p56) is far detached from the older ideas of conservatism simply meaning “family values”. I don’t think conservatism is a wholly bad idea on paper. there is an element of caution a lot of humans have and acting as a sceptic towards newer ideas is an understandable position to take. like Robert B. Talise said, calling every conservative a fascist is just blatantly untrue. but that kind of position can been taken from a caution to rapid change to the kind of ideology where a man like Milo Yiannopoulos can argue “that gays are genetically destined to be the high-achieving protectors of Western civilization against feminism and Islam” (p58), which is a sentence that exists and that I have read with my own two eyes. the kind of power that people like Yiannopolous or modern right-wing commentators have stems from capitalising on the fears of isolated individuals with a sense that the world is fundamentally flawed. i hate everything the alt-right stands for, they make me squirm and feel terrified - but we have to remember that these people are human. they weren't born like this. we have to understand how people fall into groups like the alt-right or the alpha male craze to address the underlying reasons for why these people join these groups and do something about it. their intuition is right, it’s just their methodology that’s fucked. -PRACTICALITY- I don’t have a lot to say on this chapter, so I’ll try to keep this short but BOY does Nagle get spicy. the critique that stood out to me the most was her quoting of Fisher: “What these figures had said was sometimes objectionable; but nevertheless, the way in which they were personally vilified and hounded left a horrible residue” (p67) i think my main issue with a lot of online politics in general is its focus on individuals instead of actual action. i get trying to bring down people with an audience that could do legitimate damage by spreading harmful information. but arguing with bigots on the internet over a fictional character when they clearly aren't going to change their mind doesn't do a lot. if anything it kinda causes people to double down and become more bigoted. in the words of the prophet As Told by Kenya, “I think you enjoy the ra ra”. most of politics is annoying incremental change through legislation, and I think we need to start working on practical methods of changing the world - especially the internet. just sitting around listing the ways that were all doomed isn’t going to get you very far.

lucy

I was in college 2015-2019 and took a lot of gender studies/queer theory classes (also a lot of other shit too) so I feel like I was on the Snowflake Front Lines, so to speak. In spring 2016 I took a gender studies class where one day the professor, a gen-x old school butch queer theorist, basically sat us down and was like “what is the deal with these trigger warnings? I am having a reaction where I’m like ‘you kids are over-sensitive snowflakes’ but I also recognize that this feels very ‘get off my lawn’ in a way I’m uncomfortable with — what am I failing to get?” And all of us — who had mostly been educated in left issues on Tumblr — basically tried to explain it to her, but I don’t think we did very effectively. I have more clarity about it now: the “over-sensitivity” of kids these days (or maybe kids in those days, 2016) actually does feel like the result of online phenomena. I think that being exposed to so much bigotry and bile online, not to mention actual depictions of violence, actually does affect people. If social media platforms barely keep up with doing the bare minimum of content moderation (while underpaying content moderators and giving them PTSD), it falls on individuals to do that moderation on their own, and, even then, it’s hard not to be exposed to an onslaught of various manifestations of hatred. This is how I understand “trigger warnings” and the call for safe spaces — it is a way of setting boundaries and curating an audience to avoid being exposed to a constant stream of bigotry and violence. I don’t really understand why this is so controversial especially among centrists — as I mentioned above, we already accept that content moderators are traumatized by what they see online. I was struck by an article I read recently where teens gave advice to younger kids and tweens about their internet usage, and a lot of them were like "try to avoid snuff content and porn." Of course people would be sensitive and hypervigilant in this context, if someone could turn the wrong internet corner and see some extremely fucked up and traumatizing shit!! Moreover, when we call the traumatizing effects of social media content “cancel culture,” centrists decry it. Like, I don’t think the human brain is actually meant to be able to handle that much negative feedback — it drives people crazy, and that’s why you see so many people who get “cancelled” or publicly dogpiled have these harrowing mental health crises. I’m curious to see how further study into how social media/phones are affecting our mental health take into consideration *what* we are seeing and how it affects us, rather than just being like “turn the phone off!” I suppose there’s an interesting discussion to be had about what role college campuses and classes play in this framework — whether student-driven syllabus content moderation is transposing an internet problem onto a space where it’s not relevant, or whether college professors should think more about what content students are already being exposed to on places like the internet, and what role their syllabi play in their students’ education. But I find the overreaction to left-wing college students overplayed. People have been freaking out about left-wing activism on college campuses since the 60s, and yeah, sometimes 18 year olds will have stupid ideas, but it has also led to a lot of interesting/effective organizing. The same activists that enforced trigger warnings also successfully organized to get my university to divest from fossil fuels. People had the same criticisms of anti-apartheid organizing in the 90s, and anti-milo yiannopolous (sp?) demonstrations in the 2010s, and anti-zionist organizing now. In some ways, college campuses actually end up being an effective way for tumblr-educated teen leftists to transmute their internet opinion curation into actual politics, as Nagle recommends. At least that's what I witnessed when I was in school. This also ties to why personally, I’m not that big of a fan of Haidt — while I suppose that I agree that phones are bad I find his “campus coddling” thing pretty dumb tbh. Maybe he’s changed his perspective on this over time, but I think it’s bizarre that he has spent his career tying the oversensitivity of college students to participation trophies and self-esteem and identity politics, without tying it into his thesis about internet exposure. It feels like kind of the reactionary bullshit I described above, so I approach him with a lot of skepticism. But who knows, people can surprise you.

Hex Diesis

I was a student at the hight of the no platform protests and I remember at the time, although I wasn’t actively a participant, I viewed the protests as necessary and virtuous. With the benefit of time, I feel more complexly about it now. Most of the controversial speakers who were the target of these protests went on to speak to larger audiences than a half full university auditorium, and I’ve seen the ideas they preached bloom into powerful forces in our society. Here in the UK we’ve been under Tory rule for 14 years, immigrants are more feared than ever, trans rights are under attack, and isolationist foreign policy reins supreme. Had the left been as focused on developing our own ideas as much as we were on de-platforming the right, would we be in such sour times?

Chandler Sterling

Hello, I am once again asking whether I feel tense because Nagle is calling out my bias or because she has made a bad call. I am in agreement that her "Moral Scarcity" claim is pretty weak and self-admittedly unfounded. She seems to be having some trouble calling out the way liberal in-fighting was self-destructive without taking part in a bit of liberal in-fighting. It's a Catch-22 you put yourself in when talking about Tumblr as a left-leaning individual. To say that the in-fighting is unproductive tends to fuel the in-fighting. Social media, am I right? Can't live with it... probably shouldn't live with it... oh god no, why are we living with it... oh hey, funny meme! Chapter 4 was originally not doing it for me. It mostly seemed to be summarizing the chapters that came before it which isn't terrible, but I didn't see much of a point to be honest. After reading Chapter 5 and skimming back through for my notes, I do think it serves well to juxtapose the online right with the online left. It paints a pretty clear idea of how separated the online politics were from anything other than culture war which tees up the ball for a discussion of the Tumblr-liberalism on campuses. I can at least see what she's getting at with this structure, even if I'm not completely sold on just how parallel the two movements were. "The rise of Milo's 4chan influenced right is no more evidence of a resurgence of conservatism than the rise of Tumblr-style identity politics constitutes a resurgence of the socialist or materialist left." (pg. 57) I was very taken aback the first time I read this, but on a reread, I realized I was foolishly thinking of conservatism as synonymous with "the right" in general (alt included). The chapter goes on to make it very clear that the alt-right blamed the neoconservatives for allowing the left to "win the culture war" by being too nice. Just because someone on the right was winning didn't mean that conservatives were back in office. It does seem weird on reflection to try to use conservative to mean someone on the alt-right. Conservatives, by definition, can't be transgressive. The alt-right can't be anything but. Buchanan was a name I had heard before, but I never had much context for it. What context I have now doesn't make me like him! I really don't appreciate the subtle implications he makes by giving America a soul. It makes him the metaphorical angel on America's shoulder as opposed to those demons on the other side. It makes America the thing to save instead of its people, and that turns the "enemy" from a fellow human being into avatars of sin which must be exorcised in order to save a soul. It is a parody of Christian values to go from loving your neighbor to loving your country. Dehumanizing and unproductive. Bleh. Chapter 5 bothers me! I don't disagree with the broad strokes, but the details have got me twisted into some pretty big knots. I think my primary issue is with the framing. It seems like Nagle does sympathize more with Tumblr than 4chan because she falls into a pretty telling subconscious trap. When you are trying to tell an unbiased account of something, you tend to be overly harsh on things you agree with and overly sympathetic to things you don't. The thought follows that if you really tear apart what you think, then if it's still standing, it's not biased to think that. Similarly, if you are understanding toward (or at least show an attempt to understand) something you don't believe, then you can dissuade accusations of ignoring that side. The end product is a book that appears to really sympathize with how you end up on 4chan while giving Tumblr very little room to be 3-dimensional. This seems like an unintentional (and maybe even unavoidable) effect of telling recent history in this way. I'm not always pleased with the outcome, but I can appreciate that these concessions are made in the name of changing hearts and minds. As an example, when discussing all the awful shit you could find on 4chan, you get this interesting aside, "...but it was mostly funny memes." (pg. 14) Tumblr, however, is discussed as if it were all identity politics, all-day, with nothing else of major note to be found. I spent a couple of years on Tumblr, and I know for a fact that my feed was almost entirely memes and fandom with a very occasional political post sprinkled in. I mostly enjoyed Tumblr for the world-building that came as a result of the focus on identity. My time there felt like it was a community based on individuality, as oxymoronic as that may seem. A lot of those identities were made as a way to celebrate the nuance and uniqueness of every user on the platform, and I think it was a natural result of a bunch of teenagers trying to figure out who they were in front of an audience of THE WORLD. Things definitely got out of hand here and there, but I think Nagle assumes it is easier to understand the good intentions of those on Tumblr than 4chan users. For that reason, it can read a bit harsher, but I think that immediate reaction is what Nagle is expecting. Why waste pages getting deep into someone's mindset when your readers will likely already have that mindset or not care? The point is to call attention to the hypocrisy (hypocrisy is dead, long live hypocrisy), not to belittle the people for caring. I might be too much of a Nagle apologist, but I really do think she is giving these things more consideration than a first reading might imply (even if I have to keep reminding myself of that fact). The dry tone makes it hard to tell what to think of some parts, but everything she does seems to be in service of impartial objectivity. That makes her a bit of a tough cookie to the enlightened KTI book club members because we have slain objectivity and taken only what is still useful from its remains, but regardless, she is attempting something useful here and I'm trying to hear her out. I know I've seen some people in a similar place with this book, so I'm hopeful that we will be rewarded this time next week with a promising conclusion. Either way, I'm curious what the reaction to the end of this book will be. Opinions have been much more scattered than I am accustomed to.

Macy Allen

Chapter 4 does an excellent job of examining the through line from previous culture wars to now, as well as showing how they are different. I especially like the part where Nagle states that the trumpian alt right is no more similar to previous conservatives that the current left is to old school socialists. Reading through this chapter, I find myself again flabbergasted at how these trump supporters can call themselves conservative while arguably supporting the levels of government overreach they claim to hate the left for. Firing and jailing political rivals? Illegalizing people's personal sexuality and gender expression? Replacing key government actors with your own personal supporters? Fuck yeah, say the trump supporters. That'll show those filthy libs. Meanwhile the libs are distracted because they're currently writing Israel a check for more bombs. But they say gay people have money.... Cough cough, I mean, that gay people are cool. So we vote for them anyways. Cause who cares about policy and politics? We gotta make sure our team wins!! It's red vs blue, babyyyyy. We don't have time to worry about foreign policy and the economy, the enemy team is coming for our flag so we gotta focus on THAT. Chapter 5... Ohhh boy, chapter 5. I remember my Tumblr days, fresh out of high school and just starting to discover myself. A lil trans egg, not yet hatched. I enjoy the talk in this chapter about self flagellation and "bearing witness to suffering" over actual politics. I have in my later adulthood come to the realization that "I suck cause I'm white," "I suck cause I'm straight," etc etc are actually just kind of cop outs. Self hatred for being born into/identifying with a specific group used as a placeholder for actual relevant self reflection and analysis. Maybe instead of saying I suck for being white, I should critically examine my place within dominant power structure and figure out WHY it's a problem. Tumblr and the left leaning portions of the Internet are NOT conducive places for this sort of conversation. Quitting Tumblr cold turkey and minimizing my exposure to other social media sites has honestly done wonders for my ability to critically self reflect instead of just throwing myself a pity party for others to watch.

Lou Corben

Whew, this portion really triggered my snowflake. I wrote something up last night and decided to come back and reshape it when I was less angry… I had some family upset this week when I found out my dad’s been listening to a *very* right wing podcast, so I was experiencing this portion from quite an emotional place. I’ll try to be more measured in my response here… Ch4 “In modern politics liberal leaders are forgiven for drone bombing as long as they’re cool with gay marriage” Yeeaaahhh, you guys see that Hilary Clinton tweet about the Barbie movie? RE: “Milo” - anyone else find it weird she keeps calling him that and everyone else by surnames? I watched the old clip of him being interviewed with Boy George and David Mitchell mainly because I wanted to see how David Mitchell would react to him and it was surreal how mild-mannered he was. I was fortunate to mostly avoid him in the 2010s. Looking back on him now I can’t help but feel he’s just a self-hating gay who got onto the provocateur gravy train. I found another video of him saying he loves to have sex with “Arabs [because] it’s the best hate fucking ever”. I know plenty of gay men who like to make provocative declarations, usually as an act of anti-respectability-politics, but it’s like he’s flipped that on its head and imo he’s exposing a level of self-loathing. “gays being accepted as part of mainstream society was ‘boring’” - OK so what *does* he believe in? Battery Moisturizer said above “Like for some reason now Tucker Carlson (ugly) is now a house hold name in my Canadian Suburbia and I'm not sure he's ever said a useful (or beautiful) thing in his life” and it feels true of Yiannopoulos too. What does he believe is true, useful or beautiful? We know what the right stands against, but what does it stand *for*? What pleases the god of Milo Yiannopoulos? Ch5 Right then, so it’s time to go after the SJWs. It’s really frustrating how dismissive and mocking she seems without offering any kind of concrete evidence of incidents blowing up, or of harm caused. The vast majority of the time Tumblr gender stuff seems to just be kids trying to work out their place in the world. I’m not denying the cancellation stuff gets out of hand, but Nagle ought to give examples if she really wants to be balanced. She doesn’t afford the left the insight she affords the right so personally I don’t think she’s succeeded in offering a fair view of both sides of the culture war so far. Spoon theory might be a clumsy metaphor, but the fact that Nagle doesn’t provide the context that Miserandino invented it to attempt to explain having to live with a chronic autoimmune disease and framed it as “well everyone has limited energy” pissed me off. “She came to doctors with me, she saw me walk with a cane, and throw up in the bathroom. She had seen me cry in pain” - https://butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory/ Similarly, “young women who had never gone to war claiming to have post-traumatic stress disorder” feels lacking in empathy. I don’t know, maybe she’s doing it on purpose - trying to take the view of the Right rather than trying to take a view from the centre. “Greer may as well have been on the far right” - well, now we have seen TERFs like Posey Parker finding sympathisers in Nazis (idk what Greer is up to these days). I suppose the question is whether this would still have happened if they hadn’t been deplatformed… Nagle only seems to use the word “intersectional” when she’s talking about someone she disapproves of, (“Hillary using terms like ‘check your privilege’ and ‘intersectionality’” / “Young women, very often also identifying as intersectional feminists and radicals, displayed their spoonie identity” / “One Twitter-famous intersectionalist admonished those who had called it the worst mass shooting in US history”) but then she complains that Maryam Namazie’s “didn’t receive solidarity from her Wester [sic] comrades, but she was also further condemned and attacked by them over the incident.”...So do you not want intersectionality or do you want it? If she’d framed her arguments as “the left is too busy in-fighting to unite against a rising and more cohesive right wing” instead of “people were annoying on tumblr so they kind of deserved to put up with Nazis tbh” I’d probably be agreeing with her. “the left marched on the English department while the right took the White House.” - Yes exactly! Say more about that, stop waffling about how you don’t get spoon theory. Feminist glaciers and fat masculinities sound interesting tbh lol I honestly think the Jon Ronson podcast is much more nuanced and measured, including in its criticisms of the left…. I left the link in my comment on pt1 Alright, laters x

Shy Anne

So first off I highly recommend Lily Alexandre’s “millions of dead genders: a MOGAI retrospective” for a perspective on the tumbler gender explosion that isn’t as judgmental. I was pretty ticked off by her comments about women undiagnosed with stuff because like, there is a lot of evidence that girls have been under-diagnosed with adhd and autism; it’s not a controversial take among clinical phycologists. Having experienced being misdiagnosed and put on a medication that totally fucked with me and made me feel properly insane; only to learn that what happened to me was the most statistically likely misdiagnosis, it made me empathize a lot more with women of my mother’s generation who don’t trust phycologists at all. Women, especially women of color, have very practical, grounded, reasons to trust their own abilities to diagnose themselves in community with other women who understand what they’re experiencing over someone in a lab coat telling you that drugs will fix it. (Drugs are helping me lol just had to be the right ones) On the whole moral scarcity thing, idk she’s kinda full of shit. In the words of Natalie Wynn: “Structural analysis is very boring and destroying people with gossip is extremely entertaining.” It’s a lot easier to be destructive than constructive, much simpler to throw bricks than start laying them, and like I think the only reason academics aren’t this messy is that the place where they debate ideas (slowly, through publication, with review and advice and feedback before you put ideas out) is different to where they gossip (in the hallway outside people’s offices, in the copy room, sitting at the back row of the colloquium). I don’t think gossip and human pettiness is an absolute evil, I think it’s kinda like libido, like we all just have a little part of us that gets kicks from being critical of situations we don’t have the full context for, and it can be channeled in a destructive way. I think we need a return to traditional gossip, about our co-worker’s daughter’s husband we’ve never met, the way god intended. I think a dialectical approach to like virtue vs transgression is ultimately more helpful than take it a side. Like the virtues of kindness, generosity, love, empathy, justice; these are good places to connect with others, good guiding principles, good goals. But everyone is problematic and I condemn them all, especially myself! We are all wicked and must be cleansed of our sins by making the world better, and we can’t do that without sometimes fucking around and finding out; we shouldn’t be ostracized for being problematic, we should be in communities that help us learn from our own fuck-ups, and we should put effort into helping our allies understand when something they’re doing may be problematic for the movement, rather than kicking them to the curb. And like, a lot of people who are now in the right part of the culture war started more left leaning but did something that got them absolutely trashed by lefties online and got pushed to the right, like I see that in a lot of radfems especially, it takes a lot to get their walls down enough to actually have a conversation about social constructs because they’re used to being on the receiving end of “ironic” misogyny. Like, being so anti-transgression in our spaces means anyone who isn’t perfect gets kicked out; that’s not conducive to a community of learning.

benedict.m

unrelated to this section, but does anyone else feel a *little* embarrassed to be seen with this book in public? like, How to Do Nothing had a pretty cover and an interesting thought-provoking name, I could be like 'yeah I'm reading how to do nothing' and it'd start a nice little convo. But now people ask what I'm reading and I show them this aggressive little manifesto with an all white cover and a frog on it called 'KILL ALL NORMIES.' it takes more work to turn that into a nice little convo. anyway I'll write my actual thoughts abt the section now

valentin

Too Many Genders: A Measured Response: When you meet someone, you take in a lot of sensory information. Their looks, their smell, the way the conduct themselves, their voices and all of their weird behavioral patterns. Most of these they have very little real time control over. When your person is flattened a series of tweets, or tumblr posts, or just whatever is in your bio you can be very meticulous about every aspect of your online identity; all ecompassed in text & images. I identify as male. I have never been overly gender conforming and couldn’t ever really identify with masculinity. Most of my friends are female. There has always been some kind of friction between me and other men. I’m a very social and intense personality and I don’t perform masculinity very well. The male gender sometimes appears to me as an ingroup I am not a part of. For a long time I struggled with that. There’s a seductive clarity to certain labels. Omnigay. Perigenderflux. They invite you to point at them and say: That’s me. Pin down the everchanging malleable being that is your gender and don’t let it escape! Take a few labels and build yourself an identity. Online you can explain who you are before you meet people. I don’t want to discredit these labels. I’m sure theres a mountain of people who identify as any one of the genders Nagle lists on page 71. I can empathize with socially isolated kids feeling seen by a certain very specific gender. I’m definetly more in the camp of respecting labels, because they are always indicative of some truth about that person. The opposition to that seems bad faith oftentimes. There is something to be said about Identity politics as a hinderance of leftist class solidarity, but Nagle spends a lot more time on the easy critique of “look at how many Genders they have, isn’t that ridiculous?” You gave them mental illness and an Iphone. What did you expect? I’m now more comfortable with my masculinty. I have better male role models and a better understanding of my own Identity. I realize now, that I didn’t want my (lack of ) adherence to the masculine ideal to domineer over all other aspects of my Identity. I was afraid of people seeing me as a man first and a person second. What makes you you isn’t just what’s inside your brain. You are a rainbow of expression that is to experienced in full. Labels are useful for various purposes, but they are not where identity ends, but where it begins.

benedict.m

so yeah Chapter 5 kind of sucks. I deeply appreciate Chandler Sterling's suggestion that Nagle is hedging her bets by being a little harsher on the side she's actually more aligned with and I think that's probably correct. And that softens my critique of her overall approach, BUT. I still think she did a bad job. I think I'm genuinely not bothered that she went hard at the left side of things, I'm bothered that she did it so poorly. In previous chapters, we're getting actual usernames of people involved with 4chan and gamergate, actual quotes and examples demonstrating what this developing culture looked like. But there is sooo little of that in Chapter 5. Instead she's mostly giving us sweeping statements about the whole of Tumblr, a hypothesis about 'virtue scarcity' that I do think has some merit? maybe? but it's pretty unconvincing and half-baked. The vast majority of my notes in the margins of this chapter were "source???", "explain???" and "u sure about that?" There are moments in this chapter that are extremely insightful and useful for understanding online Tumblr-esque cancel culture, like when she quotes Mark Fisher's description of it as "'driven by a priest's desire to excommunicate and condemn, an academic-pedant's desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster's desire to be one of the in-crowd'" (p.76). To me this perspective is far more interesting than a lot of what Nagle herself is talking about for most of the chapter. All three of those posited motivations are, I think, actual real parts of the extremes of cancel culture and very worth talking about! And yet IMMEDIATELY after this quote, Nagle goes "I would add...that the *key driving force* [emphasis mine] is creating scarcity in an environment in which virtue is the currency" etc etc, like...please talk about the useful quote you just dropped, not your pet theory which you haven't argued that well for. Where I think her theory is somewhat useful is in examining why so much energy went toward calling out other people on the left (or at least liberals/Democrats), rather than like active racists and bigots and whatnot. I wouldn't frame it as 'moral scarcity' though, I think it's more accurately framed as a kind of moral absolutism. As in this idea of 'there is one (1) set of beliefs & behaviors that is morally right, any person who deviates from that at all is ontologically evil and opposed to me.' But I think that that mindset describes liberals far more than it describes people who are ACTUALLY on the far-left. Believe it or not, those folks tend to be pretty accustomed to working out differences between other leftists about specific priorities and policies and beliefs and stuff. All this to say: I don't like framing this whole history as driven by the extreme right and the extreme left. I don't buy it. Everything I know about the US makes me see it more as this perpetual cyclical sexual tension between fascism (the alt-right) and neoliberalism (liberals/Democrats), with honest-to-god leftistm (organizers, abolitionists, activists) desperately trying to move us beyond that toxic relationship. - Chapter 4 - Ok but she did a good job with this one tho. The historical context she provides here is genuinely really valuable. I hadn't previously thought about the 2010s culture war as being in any way related to the counterculture movements in the 60s, but it makes sense. This push-and-pull with the left gaining some cultural ground, then the right redoubling their efforts to swing things back, and so on--this is really real. And it makes me want to understand American 90s culture better, as someone who wasn't really there for it (born in '97). But what I consider even more interesting is this chilling description of the unholy birth--or at least solidification--of neoliberalism: "The socially and morally permissive, transgressive, nonconformist cultural project within the US New Left...it turned out, coexisted quite comfortably with the scorched-earth free-market economics of the right [and] a non-conformist cultural gesture could still cover a multitude of economic sins" (p.59). Say hello to greenwashing and pinkwashing and painting 'Black Lives Matter' on streets while increasing police budgets! thanks i hate it! Lastly: "We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort...looking uncomfortably and the world we inherit." (p.61)

Shrub Dryad

Milo was SERIOUSLY annoying and ugly. It was a tremendous gift when he disintegrated. My chapter 4 notes: 57 - End of Cold War marked shift to fear of internal enemies rather than external. This would be an interesting thing to ask my parents about. 58 - "Congress for Cultural Freedom" was a plant that turned the left toward individualism and anti-conformity rather than collective economic action?? Must read more about this. 63 - The editing and punctuation remain difficult to parse, and I'm resisting commenting on every little thing because it doesn't really matter, but I cannot let "the Aids crisis" go by unremarked. What~ And how~ Ref to "Joy of Sex" in a list of pro-gay stuff - Isn't that a pretty heteronormative book? I'm pretty sure I remembered them doing an updated version and/or sequel later to add some token gay and poly content. 65 - Trying to imagine believing the things Yiannopoulos claimed to believe is exhausting, I am exhausted. 66 - I don't even know what to think about this Buckley/Vidal thing. Would Y really approve of people flying Viet Cong flags? Would he call someone a crypto-Nazi and mean it derogatorily? This doesn't seem as obvious to me as it does to Nagle. 67 - This last paragraph is a banger, though. ETA: Oh, there was also a mention of Vox Day somewhere in there, which made me astral project. Will this book talk about the Sad Puppies? I'm sure I'll develop a slight cold and fever when I read the Manosphere chapter either way.

margaret (formerly Samson)

Ugh. So chapter 5. It feels bad to read, it feels bad to all of us, we’re all having a reaction to it. I feel like that was to be expected, given the general vibe of identities who are present here today, and given our tumblerious roots. I think i was ready to have a mirror held up and to cringe at what i saw. As I read chapter 5, i was genuinely looking to find out what in the hell the left did that was so wrong. I saw evidence of teenagers overreacting to people who were dismissing them, and a lot of finger pointing and pharisaic behavior, but not really a lot of violence or outright shittiness. I’m both a bit proud, because the lack of violence is obviously a good thing, and unnerved, because it feels like this is way too easy for me to judge. It is so easy for me to justify the tumblr culture, to say “well ok they shouldn’t have said it like that, but they did kinda have a point.” Like, someone tweeting that they don’t feel bad about a kid dying (pg. 76) is indeed shitty… but someone else made a website advertising Petra Davis as a sex worker and inviting sexual violence against her (pg. 18). One of these is obviously worse than the other. That seems way too easy to me. Is that because i’m too caught up in my own bias to see things clearly? Or is the equivalence truly false? @Matthew M pointed out how the examples with the Alt Right were so specific, but the examples for the Alt Left were so vague - YeS omG why did she do that? It felt like i had to just take her word on so many things, and doing all that suspension of disbelief drove me nuts. I think the whole book would have been better if Nagle would have started it with her critique of the left, outlining the sort of infighting that they were getting into on Tumblr, and then said “ok so that was the eel sending out shocks - then wayyyy over here we have 4chan and right wing trolls reacting explosively to those shocks, witness these events with a pit in your stomach”. All that time spent chronicling the alt-right trolling really makes you feel like we’re leading up to some big bad controlling monster that they were reacting to, and then it’s just a list of genders? Spoon theory? People asking to be seen? @Lou Corben's said this- just look at this point they make, it's a thing of beauty- "If she’d framed her arguments as “the left is too busy in-fighting to unite against a rising and more cohesive right wing” instead of “people were annoying on tumblr so they kind of deserved to put up with Nazis tbh” I’d probably be agreeing with her. “the left marched on the English department while the right took the White House.” - Yes exactly! Say more about that, stop waffling about how you don’t get spoon theory. " StrawBERRY 🍓🍓🍓🍓🍓 Also, this is all hitting at a metaphorically resonant time for me, as i’ve started debates with my stupid interesting new friend who is an Alt Right JP stan. I don’t know how i’m friends with him, i want to kiss HIS face with an uppercut. And as is the nature of doing a debate, it’s important to be just as critical of yourself as you are of others. It’s not productive to make a point if it’s made with logical leaps and patchy arguments - it will just collapse later under scrutiny. And so yeah, i’m scrutinizing my points, my perspective, my ideology more, because JPStan is not stupid, he’s asking good questions, he’s giving solid enough criticism. I still think i’m correct, but damn if it isn’t forcing me back into my memory to look for what convinced me when i encountered those questions in the past. As iron sharpens iron, may i be quite pointy by the end of this. Maybe i can fix him! But Nagle, she is not helping me at all. The criticism of the methodologies of the Call Out Left, sure, that’s warranted - but the criticism of the left’s theory seems to fall kind of flat? And is it even needed? I do kind of wish she would have gone more into why the internet as a setting for all of this to happen was so impactful. The internet is a character (of sorts) in our story, and the anonymity of 4chan and the social media platforming here is a way that character is visible. But this book seems to sometimes get sucked into the wormhole of “lets look at how the left and right suck” instead of “lets look at the social patterns and cycles and behaviors that are happening, and how the internet shaped them.” Like, tumblr’s impact on the left was to provide a central(ish) place for personal anecdotes to be shared and consolidated and distributed. This allowed for dissection, elaboration, agreeing, debate, all within a (roughly) like minded community that was (roughly) interested in fighting the same evils. Add a bit more scientific rigor, and that’s a place where some serious theory work could be done, no? Page 76, she writes “At first, self-righteously or snarkily denouncing others for racism, sexism, or homophobia was the most instantaneous and certain way to achieve social media fame. Something about public social media platforms, it turned out, was conducive to the vanity of morally righteous politics and the irresistible draw of the culture wars. But soon the secret was out and everyone was doing it.” Ugh, Fuck, KTI. I, too, am unconvinced by the concept of the moral scarcity thing. It seems like she’s looking for an economic supply/demand explanation, when i think it’s really a Grace problem. We don’t know how to forgive each other, how to say “that’s a bad thing, but i still love you” (and also we don’t know how to hear “that’s a bad thing” and receive it as anything other than an attack. Probably cause it often is indeed Attack. I do think there was something real in Call Out Culture that was born out of people starting to notice racism, sexism, exploitation, etc in the world. When you start seeing it, you see it all over the place, and you kind of want to shout about it because it’s so Ugly doesn’t anyone else see how UGLY this is how are we tolerating the existence of something so UGLY we shouldn’t worship it this is BAD. Eventually someone says something just hypocritical enough, and (especially in the quick, impersonal world of social media) it sets off the fire. We overdid it, but I can also rationalize why it happened. I kind of enjoyed chapter 4 though, as it felt like a higher level look at the historical context that was background to all this. Learning that the US actively encouraged counterculture to fight the Soviets, then (after it was useful, turned around and tried to squish it back down is both funny and sad. Hearing the democratic party seems to have intentionally (???) shifted away from thinking about economics to thinking about identity feels like learning that a whole bunch of animals were indeed harmed in the making of Milo and Otis. Why did they do that? And the sexual revolution - man, that really had an impact on our culture, didn’t it? It kind of seems like both the left AND the right lost themselves around the same time, after the 50s. And then later around page 80, Nagle started to pivot away from chronicling the political infighting and warring, and to shift over towards considering the philosophical waves that were rising and falling. In particular she called out Relativism, which i’m now reading about in the SEP and which my brain is struggling to swaddle. Thanks Comte for the positivism? Idk. I can’t tell what seems valid, it all looks like weird Truth Algebra, and algebra was never my strong suit. Need to read more. Other misc notes: Pg 62’s Herman Marcuse thinking that the working class would no longer need to revolt is cute Pg. 68 - anyone know what the Liberal Left vs the Materialist Left was about? Those terms lost me. Also what the heck happened at the end of chapter 5, it’s like her editor stopped reading right before it and nobody thought to say “um this doesn’t feel like it fits the vibe of the rest of the chapter, maybe we tweak?”

Adison

On Chapter 4 Nagle is smart to place the rise of internet culture wars within a larger context, and she does a good job of laying out the connecting threads. I’ve long been interested in the history of American conservatism, and I think she accurately argues that culture wars issues have become increasingly integral to conservative electoral strategy. As we navigate the post-Trump turned Ron DeSantis era of the Republican party, this chapter proved to be a helpful resource in understanding how we got here. I like her inclusion of this George Bush Sr. quote, “‘There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as was the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America.’” It is interesting to see how Nagle understands this war to be won. “The rise of Milo, Trump, and the alt-right are not evidence of the return of conservatism, but instead of the absolute hegemony of the culture of non-conformism, self-expression, transgression and irreverence for its own sake - an aesthetic that suits those who believe in nothing but liberation of the individual and the id, whether they’re on the left or the right. The principle-free idea of counterculture did not go away; it has just become the style of the new right.” And I mostly agree! There is clearly something futuristic and horrifying about the Trumpian style of Republicanism. There is a rejection of euphemism and an embrace of chaos that certainly seems new in American politics. America has always been a very pro-id individualist country, but the death instinct seems to have taken over. “The alt-right also seeks to destroy more than it proposes to build, unlike the institutional-building and tradition-preserving ethos of US conservatism.” Where I disagree with Nagle is her conclusion. I don’t believe that the embrace of chaos in American politics is emblematic of the domination of transgressive or relevant style of politics, but rather that we are entering an era in which “the war for the soul of America,” is centered on how we can destroy and rebuild it. Everyday it becomes clearer that the American experiment is failing, and I think the current chaos is a reflection of that. On Chapter 5 Reading these two chapters back to back felt.. Correct? But the contrast between them made the infuriating parts of chapter 5 more obvious. I share the same sentiment as my fellow commenters above… oh boy. I was really rooting for Nagle! After Chapter 1, I felt kind of bad that I spent my whole comment thread discoursing about her and questioning her ability to frame issues, but that feeling is back with a vengeance. I have two main issues with this chapter. First, I somewhat disagree with her assessment of identity politics, and second, I disagree with her assessment of the stakes involved in these issues. Nagle is clearly dissatisfied with the way identity politics have become more central to leftist ideology, but I find her total rejection of it as Tumblr culture war bullshit to be incorrect. In my opinion, identity politics and structural analysis are two sides of the same coin, and you need both to correctly identify how politics are created, and how they affect individuals. “Professor Adolph Reed Jr. has often said liberals don’t believe in actual politics anymore, just ‘bearing witness to suffering.’ The cult of suffering, weakness and vulnerability has become central to contemporary liberal identity politics, as it is enacted in spaces like Tumblr.” I see what Reed is trying to get at here, but I think he (and Nagle by extension) are missing a lot of why this approach to politics feels so unsatisfying. Part of what makes the liberal adoption of identity focused culture war nonsense so grating is that it is hollow. It’s the contradiction between acknowledging the symptoms of a white-supremiscist capitalist system without acknowledging the root cause. Hillary Clinton can discuss feminism as much as she wants, but she clearly doesn’t care about how the wars she perpetuated affect women's lived experiences. The Tumblr teens are clearly guilty of this way of thinking, but a lot of them are also literal children. As we get into Nagle’s discussion of millennial college students and their attempts to engage in the larger culture war, it becomes increasingly clear that Nagle has fallen for an age-old moral panic. “Trigger warnings had to be issued in order to avoid the unexpectedly high number of young women who had never gone to war claiming to have post-traumatic stress disorder. They claimed to be ‘triggered’ by mention of anything distressing, a claim with no scientific basis and including everything from great works of classical literature to expressions of pretty mainstream non-liberal opinions, like the idea that are only two genders.” Cringe. Now obviously, there is something real she’s trying to get at here. There is something damaging about an over-identification with hopelessness and victimhood. Hope and thick skin are integral to political organizing. But to act like the “trigger warning” movement was only run by weak women? Gross take. To create a more positive world, one in which safety and care are prioritized, there has to be an understanding of trauma. And I think Nagle kind of rejects the trauma-informed leftist perspective. Granted, I do think it was still at the beginning of its development in 2017, but oof. “As far as this new generation of campus feminists was concerned, Greer may as well have been on the far-right. Greer had not published any comment about transgenderism for over 15 years, which was ‘not my issue,’ she later told Newsnight.” Here’s where we get into my second issue with this chapter, framing. First off, I want to recommend “If Books Could Kill’s” episode on The Coddling of the American Mind. In the episode, they talk a lot about the history of campus culture wars, and how often the stakes are overblown in the coverage of these events. Getting disinvited from speaking at a random college is not an indicator of growing authoritarianism. It’s just a consequence for the dumb shit you say. I also found the collection of speakers she included in this section to be… confusing? To write off Greer’s transphobia as “not her issue” is such a dishonest framing of Greer’s work. “I often think the brain drain out of the left during this period because of the Tumblrization of left politics has done damage that will prove long-lasting.” Maybe yes, but I don’t know. While I think there were lots of illegitimate mass harassment campaigns enacted in the name of leftism, and that the growing culture of perfect virtue signaling is dangerous, I don’t know if I fully agree with this sentiment. I think a lot of what defined this era of leftism was renegotiation of tolerance, and what (as a movement) leftist will and won’t tolerate. While I think that was taken to extreme ends, I don’t think the overall project was misguided. I want to participate in a leftims that is feminist, pro-trans, anti-racist, and trauma informed, etc, etc, etc. Sensitivity is not a failure. It is a strength.

alex

** chapter 4 i'm late to the party but let's do this i'll admit that i am dreadfully and terrifyingly out of my scope when it comes to philosophy. my contribution to the collection of littol pictures will be a burst of me with innumerable wikipedia tabs looking increasingly perturbed and distressed. chapters 2 and 3 were terrifying. but as we go on to chapters 4 and 5… mmmmm okay dr. nagle you’re starting to lose me she starts out pretty well - i 100% agree that politics have basically been subverted as the new vessel of a culture war. the dichotomy of dark brandon and uhhhh fully endorsing palestinian genocide is thankfully not lost on people my age, but i am still seeing liberals(TM) insist he’s better for the LGBT Community(TM). “It is sometimes said that the right won the economic war and the left won the culture war…. it is the recognition of identity that has triumphed over economic equality as the organizing principle of the Anglo-American liberal left..” see, she’s spot on here. she mentions virtue signaling in earlier chapters but she absolutely misses the opportunity to draw that thread here too. part of leftists’ irritation with liberals is that their convictions feel.. facetious. or at least, surface level. sure, you can support blm. you can use the correct pronouns. but why aren’t you willing to examine the economic system that routinely subjugates them? that is, why aren’t you willing to *truly* support people you claim to rally around? at least when the right says they hate these people, they are *willing* to hurt them. look at the multitude of laws passed specifically to hurt trans people. liberals are all too willing to wave the rainbow flag, but when it comes to passing legislation that will protect trans kids? or codifying roe v wade? nah. that’s too extreme. case and point: “…the US New Left had… coexisted quite comfortably with the scorched-earth free-market economics of the right..” and “Why should the overthrow of the existing order be of vital necessity for people who own, or can hope to own, good clothes, a well-stocked larder, a TV set, a car, a house, and so on, all within the exiting order?” these two should be diametrically opposed. and yet, here, they’re not. ** chapter 5 this.. mm. we start punching left as the lord as the lord intended. alright. again, i’m telling on myself here, but i was on tumblr at this time. fandom tumblr, to be specific, from ages 14-19. so that lines up to 2012-2018ish. granted, i’m still on tumblr when i want to not see the uhhhh massive doom machine crunching on on twitter but those were my prominent years. i was also in undergrad from 2016-2019 and. the way that nagle is continuously referring to “campus politics” and “campus wars” is Really starting to grate on me. the way it’s being described is very much through the lens of someone who was Not in college, and who has Not been in college in a long time. granted, it seems she got her phd in dublin, so it would make sense if she was using google scholar/semantic scholar etc to look for stories of When College Kids Did Things. like- look. my college wasn’t huge. we had around 15kish when i was enrolled, but i never saw people bodying each other in lecture halls debating marxist theory. i did however have the displeasure of 1) seeing prolife america plastered all over newsstands and 2) taking down a plain white computer paper sign with the words “IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE” on it. oh, and the jehovah’s witnesses were there outside the library every thursday. but what nagle is doing here is saying college kids (14.2 million undergrads as of fall 2023) = some of the kids experimenting with gender on tumblr. just a quick search can tell you only 15k follow the “otherkin” tag on tumblr. posts including “anxiegender” have at most 171 notes. posts using the “faegender” tag have at most 1.2k notes (and that one was discourse). r/the_donald? 790k members. r/cringeanarchy? 400k. r/fatpeoplehate? 151k. r/frenworld? 60k. at its peak, r/incels had 40k. this is pretty gross false equivalence, especially when she goes on to describe "adults identify[ing] as babies" and "able-bodied people who identify as disabled people to such an extent that they... blind, amputat[e], or otherwise injur[e] themselves to become the disabled person they identify as. not to sound completely unhinged, but age regression (28k followers on tumblr) is a kink and body integrity identity disorder (118 notes on tagged posts at Most) is an (extremely) rare mental illness. once again, this is false equivalence. these are not "liberal fixations on relatively niche sections" - these are exceptionally niche things contained within their own community. ugh. but that precedes again one of her important points about online liberals: "[L]iberals don't believe in actual politics anymore, just 'bearing witness to suffering." and yes, i encountered that before. i dabbled in anti-sjw things around the age of 17 because seing some blogs with identities stacked on mental illnesses stacked on chronic illnesses was cringe (even though spoons is how i dealt with smi) (it was bad for me). she then swings into the witch hunts the online left is known for. "..the way in which [people that said problematic things] are personally vilified and hounded left a horrible residue," and it is indeed like they're "driven by a priest's desire to condemn, an academic-pedant's desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster's desire to be one of the in-crowd." i am once again reminded of mother contrapoints's video "Canceling," but i want to add the layer of noah sampsen's "The Vaush Effect." we as left-leaning people (not to call the entirity of this patreon out) love a video essay. we love a LONG, overly researched and put together video. we'll eat that right up. and if one of our People tell us someone's problematic while flashing up The Evidence, nothing gets us more riled up. god we love receipts. god we are our own worst enemy. "[The attacks increasingly focused on other liberals and leftists often with seemingly pristine progressive credentials, instead of those who engages in any actual racism, sexism, or homophobia... virtua could not be spread too thinly. [An] intersectionalist admonished those who had called [the Pulse shooting] the worst shooting in US history by reminding them that 'the worst was wounded knee.'" nagle's exactly correct here. this is the natural consequence of the liberal movement's co-opting of the *visuals* of something revolutionary rather than actual economic resolution. it's facetious, it's surface level. it's cringe. and yet. she goes on to ENTIRELY MISS THE PLOT. instead of analyzing how this is explored in popular discourse, she again segues into the nichest of the niche tumblr rhetoric to explain these things. and then, honestly, one of the most egregious things she's written: "Trigger warnings had to be issued in order to avoid the unexpectedly high number of young women who had never gone to war claiming to have post-traumatic stress disorder." ok. complete misunderstanding of the etiology and who ptsd can "belong" to aisde, this is when i think she begins to engage in bad faith. she begins with the story of germaine greer. she tells us she was been transformed into a "forbidden and toxic TERF" by a "new generation of campus feminist" despite having not published any comment on "transgenderism" in 15 years. cardiff university then "pandered" to these concerns by releasing a statement about "working hard to provide a positive and welcoming space" for the queers or whatever. she then describes payton quinn, whose righteous nonbinary feminist fury could only be quenched by publishing an open letter. except there were like ten protesters at the talk. and they were accompanied by 5 cops. and the comments she published 15 years ago were egregious. and the comments she published that year were exactly in line with the comments she published 15 years ago. (and they were egregious) (such that i won't copy them here, but they can be found on @tansyhoskins's twitter). following that, fran cowling refused to share a stage with peter tatchell because tatchell signed a letter against college no-platforming. now, if nagle were engaging in good faith, she would have explained (as she explained what TERF stood for, despite having not explained numerous other esoteric concepts) that no-platforming was used for keeping holocaust deniers and fascists off campus. more recently, it was also to help keep terfs off as well. i'm going to guess it didn't make cowling happy that germaine greer was directly mentioned in the letter tatchell signed, but it again reminds me of the point natalie made in "Canceling." the tldr of that round of canceling is natalie used buck angel to voice a line in one of her videos, and since buck angel was "truscum" and supposedly outed someone, he was a bad person and so was she by association. but one of the points she made boiled down to "is buck angel truscum? or is he using the language of the time that he feels applies better to him?" i won't analyze each example she used because this is already very long, but i do think this is beginning to feel.. very bad faith. especially as she goes onto quote todd gitlin, who believes that "relativistic notions of identity, which have today reached their logical conclusion in the Tumblr world of proliferating identities, represented the 'twilight of equality.'" again. this is...false equivalence. this niche of niche of niche community is ≠ the alt-right. the major difference is that the biggest harm the left is going to continue to be is to itself. the biggest harm the alt-right is going to be is to just about everything it touches. progressive dog-piling is just minorities and allies attacking people they *can* attack. reactionary dog-piling is actively trying to strip the rights of, oppress, and kill people that it is (with some variable degree) acceptable to attack.

moon

This is really last minute but I was thrown off by a couple things in my life and had to catch up on reading afterwards. Chapter 5 Nagle has briefly acknowledged the conservative value of preserving and drawing inspiration from the Western Canon but she went into more depth in this chapter. “Central to the undermining of the Western Canon was the relativism of figures like literary theorist Stanley Fish, who undermined the idea of the stable meaning of texts and of a literary canon having objective timeless value: ‘The only way we can hope to interpret a literary work is by knowing the vantage point from which we perform the act of interpretation.” (p.72) “Bloom, also Paglia’s Ph.D. supervisor, supported the idea of aesthetic and taste discrimination in the service of truth and beauty, and believed relativistic thinking was a slippery slope to nihilism. He wrote: Stanford students are to be indoctrinated with ephemeral ideologies and taught that there can be no intellectual resistance to one’s own time and its passions’…” (p. 73) I have so many thoughts about this. First of all the slippery slope idea is dumb, everything’s a slippery slope, everything taken to the extreme is ineffective. Second—the undermining of the Western canon makes sense on a level. Upholding and drawing inspiration from certain works is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course the quality of a work influences how many interesting ideas it generates, but the problem is that there is an incredible, unreasonable amount of quality texts. There is so much good art. The direction the spotlight is casted could be infinite, so the determining factor on where it is casted is often the powers that have the resources to direct that spotlight in the first place. I believe the reason why de Sade’s work is so important is in part because it is (presumably, I’ve never read it) of a high quality, but also in part because so many have been inspired and created work whose genealogy can be traced to it. I think the reason why there was (is?) a push to question the legitimacy of studying these works is because institutions of power reinforce their power by embracing works aligned with their goals intentionally, or otherwise. So many mythologies have faded into obscurity because they did not have the technologies to preserve them. But there’s another side of it! There’s this idea that I feel like CJ and Michael Burns talked about in the A Conversation With series about philosophers from ancient times forming a direction of inquiry that repeats itself with each new generation of philosophers. The questions become more specific as they are applied to new contexts. The Western canon already exists, and with it, its conventions and forms can be manipulated in a way where you can be confident that others are primed to understand you. We are all given a limited vocabulary for what we experience and sometimes you have to contend with what already is rather than what should be. Maybe the established past shouldn’t be rejected but rather made anew with more diverse voices and perspectives. And maybe it’s possible to widen the scope of what the canon includes retroactively? There’s another situation that I think relativism does not work well in. A little while ago I was reading this prelude to Homer’s Odyssey (The Alexander Pope translation) by Theodore Alois Buckley who was very against the litany of theories on the identity of Homer. There are many differing opinions on how the Odyssey and the Iliad were written, whether Homer was a single person of a group of writers, etc. This is often referred to as the Homeric question. He wrote “And there is a kind of sacredness attached to the memory of the great and the good, which seems to bid us repulse the scepticism which would allegorize their existence into a pleasing apologue, and measure the giants of intellect by an homeopathic dynameter.” I think that some works of art are probably made greater or enjoyed in greater effect when there is an air of deep admiration around them, and I think that maybe a rejection of accepted interpretation can take away from that. On Alan Socal’s hoax: Lately I’ve been thinking about poetry and nature and understanding. Poets borrow from the cycles of nature as representations of more abstract processes. Like grief and winter. We intuitively believe physical phenomena has the key to abstract truths. There’s this scientist, Suzanne Simard, who has done some work on how saplings benefit from fungi because of the underground root connections where plants and fungi can exchange minerals (mycorrhizal networks.) She is criticized for the hippie spirituality she injects into her science for almost anthropomorphizing trees, she wrote a book called Finding The Mother Tree (I have not read it, I think I read one paper of hers and it was a long time ago so) In old growth forests there are trees that have more root connections with other trees which are important for the overall health of the forests. I think that there is something beautiful about the way Simard goes about her research, it’s her passion that led to the discoveries that she’s contributed to the field. But I still really value science that is as rigorous as possible. I think that science is in service of truth and beauty. I think maybe science is building towards a better story than what we have though, maybe fusing it with too much of your own story is prideful. I don’t know. Chapter 4 I don’t have as much to say here. This chapter was really dense and informative and I feel like I still need to understand it better. “New Left thinker Herbert Marcuse meanwhile raised the question of whether it is possible to conceive of revolution when there is no vital need for it'. The need for revolution, he explained, is something quite different from a vital need for better working conditions, a better income, more liberty and so on, which can be satisfied within the existing order. Why should the overthrow of the existing order be of vital necessity for people who own, or can hope to own, good clothes, a well-stocked larder, a TV set, a car, a house and so on, all within the existing order?" (p. 55) I also think this, consumerism bad, but also everyone seems to feel the weight of financial burden these days so who knows? Though even then, there are more cheap luxuries than a century ago and I think it can be distracting. I wonder if Nagel will talk about online subcultures promoting lifestyles feeding into consumerism. Like how a lot of people treat books these days or the Stanley Cup. Which Mina Le, a video essayist, made a video about recently! So those are some of my thoughts, sorry for the tardiness.

annie liz

Chapter 4 I like the history, despite my many margin notes saying “source??” or “say MORE” on topics that Nagle dances past. Appreciate the extension from the previous chapters. Milo Yiannopoulos sounds like…. a weird little man. What kind of motherfucker chooses to keep existing in perpetual, simultaneous loops of circle-jerking and incendiary self-loathing? What's up with his brain waves? Nagle makes a point to differentiate between different camps on the right side of the political spectrum, citing the old-school conservatives, Yiannopoulos’ alt-right memers, neoconservatives, evangelical moralists, Trump and his cronies, etc. etc. I had never really engaged in those boxes before, and I found it super interesting; it’s very easy to just look at the opposing political side as an amalgamation of The Right. Like Chandler said, once you look at the differences, it feels weird to try to define them all as the same thing. This was a bit of a flick in the face for me, and I appreciated the callout. Nagle uses these examples to demonstrate the “faults” on the right that fractured the republican/conservative party in the US. But even as I recognized my biases and accepted that there was more nuance, I still have to ask… then what? Yes these people fought on TV and on twitter and made blog posts talking their shit, but like… the rank and file still holds pretty strong when it’s time for the big decisions. Did the faults of Right-infighting change the ultimate choice for the Guy On The Ballot in 2016? In the primaries, maybe. In the red-or-blue choice for the presidency? I don’t think so. Is this because the 4chan culture was too overpowering, creating a hegemony of alt-right transgression that completely took over that political side? Or is it because the infighting of the right never gets too big to be in the way for the hatred of the amalgamation of The Left (a horrendous and all-threatening being as ill-defined as the aforementioned amalgamation of All The Right)? Everyone retweeted those Lincoln Project videos in 2020 because they were made by never-trump republican whoevers, but let’s be honest, they were only ever posted for (and reposted by) people who felt correct and righteous in what they already believed to be true. Did those videos convince anyone to change their beliefs? Not significantly. Maybe I’m still over-generalizing too much. Chapter 5. Oh boy! Of the many criticisms The Gang has had over this chapter (all of which I’ve hungrily and appreciatively read), a lot of them seem to boil down to context, scale, and faith. Sleepystorm points out the stats comparing neogender tags on tumblr to r/incels, drastically different numbers that Nagle equates as equal. Adison mentions framing and stakes, disbelieving the gravitas of disinvited college talks to the rise of actual nationalistic authoritarianism. Lou mentions the lack of sourcing and background. Matthew M talks about missing motivations. Everyone is just kinda raising their eyebrows and I love it. My problem is I keep on catching slivers of what Nagle wants to say and AGREEING with her before the context and the scale and the bad faith whisks her back away from our common ground. Like YES, let’s talk about the online foundations of callout posts and canceling, let's talk about the influx of identification, let’s talk about white victimizing and the self-flagellation of privilege, let’s talk about purity policing, let’s talk about the feelings of autonomy surrounding personal attacks compared to community organization!!!! There’s good shit in here!! But Nagle doesn’t wade into it the way she did in previous chapters with 4chan and right-wing political commentary. I think ultimately I’m just a bit bummed that she stopped at the surface.

halley

the comments on this thread are such a rich expansion on these frustrating chapters! I'm trying to digest everything and make a coherent response but I'm also feeling the time crunch and hoping to be caught up by saturday. honestly I was feeling pretty lost in the onslaught of hastily or unexplained references for much of this and not really impressed by a lot of the examples and wording. the recent interview with prof. Aikin was really grounding for framing these discussions. I kept thinking of points made in that interview during these chapters like the importance and limitations of civility in discourse, arguing vs. pandering to your audience, and the dismissiveness of a meta critique. pragmatism feels like a theoretical compass, a guiding light through this mess of identity intertwined with ego. the part about spoon theory turning into a zealous online subculture community had me thinking again of Alexander Avila's politics of self-diagnosis video essay and this recent post by dr. Price (https://www.instagram.com/p/C3GOtRVp5T5/?igsh=MTQxaWt3aGdvb3dpMA==). what is even the point of diagnosis if not to help people live better lives? what percentage of these self-diagnoses are truly problematic or attention seeking, as is often latched onto by people trying to make some point, vs people actually suffering and feeling unseen under a dehumanizing system and exclusionary medical model of diagnosis? as gender is so intertwined with identity I believe there are as many genders as there are people, and what I saw in this chapter seemed like a perfect example of what CJ and Aikens mentioned in the interview- the expansiveness of this explanation of gender was used to refute it, and to demonstrate the superiority of a simplistic easy to grasp definition instead. the problem I keep noticing is confusing tools (for collective liberation) with identity (ego protection). intersectionality is a critical framework; using intersectionalist as a label is nothing more than virtue-signaling. spoon theory is a great tool for communicating needs and seeking empathy, but 'spoonie' culture is turning that into an identity. which is fine, but it's not liberation, it's not changing society to be more accessible for all. this also seems related to why the 'liberal left' is getting stuck at representation- it's just classic girl boss white feminism. but, I'm not even completely convinced this is all just leftist infighting- I find myself asking where the real left is, the revolutionaries, the american anarchists, the abolitionists, the black liberation and land back movements, and it seems these threats are carefully and systematically destroyed- no matter which party is in power. perhaps (neo)liberals trying (and succeeding?) to convince everyone they are the left is an act of sabotage intended to destroy any real resistance to the empire! the enemy is not any party but the 2 party paradigm itself! identity politics favors representation over systemic change. rather than comparing who is morally worse or has better arguments what I'm noticing is that the many problems problematically explained in ch 5 make the left ineffective, and when the task is so important, when the issues are of life and death, isn't being ineffective a form of violence too? those on the side of life have the responsibility to be better at organizing and defending it! when one side is churning out death threats and deepfakes silence is complicity and saying stupid shit is just taking up space. like the part about the kid being eaten by the alligator?? inside thoughts, please. the trolls don't need more fodder, they thrive off engagement. sometimes the only sane response is to turn off the comments. the structures of the internet enable incredibly niche communities on all sides, and community building creates power. I think Nagle did a pretty good job explaining the massive impact and spillover of 4chan et al into real-world politics and I think she wants to paint a similar picture by equating tumblr to the left's version of this but I just don't see it as being quite as influential. maybe it had a bigger impact on an individual level by empowering individuals, some of whom brought that momentum into their politics? a dangerous idea that seems to have come out of all this is confusing identities with values. (milo is a great example of this actually!) identity markers don't condemn anyone to being a certain kind of person. we all have privilege. we all have blood on our hands. for some this realization is too horrifying to admit but it is necessary to sit with the guilt, to face the discomfort of privilege. I remember reading somewhere 'there is no hierarchy of oppression' - I don't think fighting over who is the most or least oppressed is useful. I'm really annoyed by the arthur chu quote saying that 'as a dude who cares about feminism' he wants to drag the whole gender off a cliff and into the sea- what is this supposed to solve? in my experience, men are often more receptive to listening to other men when it comes to changing attitudes around gender and feminism, and we need all the comrades we can get! safe spaces and inclusive community are not mutually exclusive. don't cry about not being invited to the women's circle, use your position to speak up for women when there aren't any around; work towards building a community where safe spaces wouldn't be necessary! it can be even more powerful for an outsider to join the fight for the rights of a given community because they don't have to, they're not expected to. it shows someone is motivated by empathy and self-sacrifice rather than self-preservation and belonging.