I vigorously agree with the first and second points. I still struggle, too, including verbally and in daily life, but I at least refrain from doing so around those who are not themselves intimately familiar with (and often veterans of) this toxic "chan culture".
On the third point: Identity politics is not just a purely superstructural phenomenon; identities formed in the superstructure out of the base also exist and this board pushes that identity politics all the time, especially workerist bollocks and "working class" / proletariat worship. Beyond that, this board is just as idpol-ridden as any other. Notice how I don't focus much on identity politics or talk about it in purely identitarian terms even when I do; that is because I am concretely against identity (from a Stirnerian / Deleuzian / post-left perspective), despite curiously not sharing the rabid "anti-idpol" sentimentality. Perhaps that is because all this "anti-idpol" bollocks is itself just concentrated idpol in denial. But even I do not pretend to be pure from any politics of identity, for I know there is no escape from identity (for identity is ideology in the personal).
So, if you are against identity politics for whatever reason, you must understand that it is universal and found here at home, too, where it is some of the most rabid -- more rabid than even on reddit. Yes, in a sense identity politics can be divisive, but also unifying. It depends on how it is used. In my experience, what ultimately generates the division in many idpol discourses is the identity policing that is often found among those who resist the idpol of the claimant or critic. Without that, the divisive capacity of idpol largely falls apart because there is no basis upon which to divide a group on identity grounds that does not amount to racist/sexist/whatever segregationist or separatist ideology. As for the latter, that should simply be called out as reactionary whenever it arises. (For those of you reading who dislike multiculturalism for whatever reason, understand that this is not an endorsement for multiculturalism per se
, just an opposition to segregationist and separatist ideology and advocacy as reactionary.)
Marx's critique of liberal rights, identity, and freedom in "On the Jewish Question" is commendable, though I personally prefer Stirner's critique as much more radical (and not so bound up in antisemitic misreadings). I have and had very close trans friends who are also Stirnerians. They understand that their trans identity is a spook; they are also postgenderists, and so understand their gender (and indeed their sex!) to be spooks as well. These realisations do not erase their trans experience as lived in this world, however, not least because the trans experience is as much a socially constructed hellscape as it is an internally inflected one, since none of us can wear whatever we want or act however we please or modify our bodies in any way we please without being policed and harassed and threatened with spooks such as gender, sex, and their associated norms. Moreover, these trans people would very much prefer to have rights given to them by the state, even though they want to abolish the state, because being given liberal "freedom" is better than not even having that, even though they want to be free (and take that freedom) in a radically more profound sense.
What this means is that trans rights and trans issues, indeed all
identity politics, do not
amount to "red herrings". They amount to real struggles which are just as real as any basic class struggle because they are coconstitutive social realities that are lived every single day. The fact that they are superstructural phenomena -- the fact that they are spooks
, fictions hallucinated by the mind -- do not grant them a level of unreality that can be safely disregarded as secondary to class because
their social reality in the present material conditions has equally real present material consequences, such as those you implicitly acknowledged and I explicitly stated. Thus, any real
movement which seeks to abolish the present state of things must
wage a totally abolitionist war -- a war of all against all, culture war and not just class war -- if we are to totally abolish these things and transform society into something radically new.
"N-word" is just a way of euphemising a taboo term that fails to respect the use-mention distinction. If I am mentioning
"nigger", then I am not using
it, nigger. (And even my use may not be sincere.)
(Counterargument: The use-mention distinction itself fails to reckon with the power of even mentioning
words in shaping and normalising thoughts and values, and so it alone may not justify opposing the censorship of certain terms.)
In practice, I generally do not even mention
the word, especially offline and rarely on chans, because I understand doing so to be socially counterproductive in virtually every instance. But I frankly would rather live in a world that understands the use-mention distinction than one in which I need to police my language based on a failure to do so. I would rather live in a world in which everyone agrees that using "nigger" is bad and so is policed into "n-word" than one in which "nigger" is still used, though.
Basically this, though I'm not sure VeteranTankie meant it exactly that way. But yes: spooks are not real, but those possessed by them are, and they will make real these spooks through that possession. When living in a world haunted by countless spooks, you must possess
spooks without being possessed by
them, to wield them as tools to navigate this spooky world like a spectral mask for its faceless wearer.
While I am sympathetic to the old adage that the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house (though I understand Land disagrees with this through, among other reasons, his reading of Marx's understanding of capitalism as a destructive force against all traditions and values), I find useful Judith Butler's framing of notions such as gender as tools whose infinite proliferation and differentiation can undermine the very foundations upon which they are naturalised, thereby opening the means whereby they can be abolished altogether: it is difficult to militate against gender in a world that has naturalised only two and bound it to sex, but much easier when there is a rich plethora of genders all of whom lack any naturalised component.