We need to have a conversation about Deference Politics

Keep in mind that you weren't necessarily reported by someone else from social.coop, it's a big fediverse. Also that moderators may reach out to you about a report even if you're not necessarily at fault, so please don't feel offended if we reach out to chat about something, it doesn't mean we agree with the report or are necessarily going to take action, but we try to be thorough and understand where people are coming from (that said, I'm not on call right now and haven't looked at this particular report, I'm just saying this as a general blanket statement for everyone else who may read this and am not speaking on behalf of the moderator who's handling your report, or about this specific report).

Thank you for this clarification. I was under the false impression that this was within our instance, though I see there is some objection within our instance now, too. I'm thinking I will filter to just our Mastodon instance for a while since it's apparent to me that I am out of touch with this community and find myself reacting to the fediverse at large

Thanks for that clarification, Sam. The particular moderation question aside, I personally am not feeling the need for a discussion of "deference politics." I listened to the Chris Hayes podcast with Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò (thanks for the suggestion), who has a nuanced and very specific take on the complex dynamics involved. The example of drinking water in Flint was a good example. His book sounds interesting.

There are legitimate reasons, I believe, to urge caution about identitarian deference directives. Matt Bruenig has written at least a couple times about it through the years, and I believe they both resonated with me, though I've not read them recently to determine to what degree I still agree with them. I also think of the perils of people being seen as some kind of oracles because of their something like the ascriptive identities such as social race, gender identity, etc. I particularly have found it irksome when I have had the sense that some folks are playing it up as the interpreter and teacher, when it's pretty obvious that they're making it up as they go along or learning it for their damnselves for the first time, as well, yet are hardly wells of knowledge on the topic but have talked - typically - white liberals to see them as having deep knowledge on the experiences of the particular identity and ways of seeing the world of this ascriptive identity (when they're generally just repeating the same cookie cutter platitudes).

Of particular note, I appreciate Adolph Reed's analysis, presented in his essay "What Are The Drums Saying, Booker?," and the repackaged or re-conceived one by Yvette Carnell via "the negro whisperer" role. Simply put, there are people that are running a racket by pitching themselves to white liberals as some kind of scholars about various isms by virtue of their having an identity and knowing how to market themselves for a paying gig as explainers.

I'm familiar with Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò after having followed him on Twitter years ago (prior to this book you cite), in which he and another black academic had argued well against a white socialist who was attacking their work, IIRC, on racial capitalism - an attack that I find particularly abhorrent.
A few days ago, some black leftists i follow and appreciate also had a show in which they set up to debunk the notion of racial capitalism. I still find this critique set out to invalidate the racial capitalism analysis wrongheaded and driven by the kinds of pettiness of people, who no matter what shade, make it a favorite past time of not coincidentally denying the existence of the class reductionism mentality.

All of this is a bit of a departure from your invitation for people to engage in a 1-on-1 conversation with you (as can be seen on one of your posts on the social.coop local timeline) in which they would get to hear you go on and on about why you do not like deference politics and ostensibly about how wronged you were by a volunteer moderator.

You could have a reasonable argument to why you feel it is unjust to be wrapped up in some moderation process. That's completely plausible, as I do know from at least offline, various upper class progressives (who believe they are radicals, naturally) who abuse various structures in order to penalize someone that they disagreed with. In other words, some professional class predominantly white leftist spaces can be enmeshed in Karen Culture.

As for Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, I've also seen him in various panels about assorted subjects on the left and listened to at least one interview from him years ago about this book, as well as have read a few articles from him on this topic you mention above. The last article I read from him, I believe, he cited reparations as a notion that people should consider - I think he had an upcoming book on it - but he still seemed like he was just looking for things to write about and yet that he was not yet ready to really commit to, or that he was setting out to write a new book on the topic, but that he did not feel like he needed to familiarize himself with what was already out there and who else - or what orgs - to support. In other words, he came off, IIRC, like Sam Harris.

Even in the book you cite, he did not cover any new territory. And, it is pitiful indeed for you to cite the book as if others should go read it, when you made explicitly clear that you have not done so.

As much as I find the kinds of excesses of indentitarian deferentialism eye rolling, I do not come across it much at all anymore, but instead have come to more find this same behavior by people who identify by the flag they wave and claim to be the spokesperson for: "As a feminist, I ...", "As a socialist, I ..." No,. these folks are not spokespeople for monoliths either, yet that kind of stuff is ubiquitous on the left. Yet, I do not really ever see anyone decrying how obnoxious that is, as well as the podium people erect in order to stand on top of, while maligning others, with the sort of decrees that as a socialist, one must defend Putin, or that as a socialist, one must have as their first identify anti-Zionist, and that if you are not consumed completely with a commitment going on about how much you are an anti-Zionist, then you are a Zionist. Well, as you said about uncomfortable conversations, some of us are also not prepared to hear this, but it echoes the pronouncements that if one is not an explicit and self-defining anti-racist, then they are a racist. I guess one of my pet peeves is how much assorted leftists decry the behavior of identity politics advocates while engaging in the very same behavior themselves but under an ideological flag. In other words, it's also identity politics (cue "the working class") yet poorly concealed and apparently only fooling the anti-ID politics leftists themselves.

But, the one thing that is more eggegious than all of this to me is the following:

> A pertinent example of would be if a Jewish person guilt tripped us about the holocaust, using that memory of the holocaust to justify another genocide while we all look away.

When you speak of "us" who "a Jewish person" is trying to guilt trip, are you under the assumption that social.coop is a segregated safe space for gentiles to talk about scheming and sneaky Jews trying to pull one over? I cannot imagine nor want to be cognizant of the kind of antisemitic notions you have running through your head and the assumptions of who you think is and is not in the room.
Generally, I know that people online tend to apply at least a little effort by swapping Jew for Zionist, when they recycle the tropes.

As well, I saw a tweet from you on the local timeline in which you accused a black woman of "weaponizing her race" (or something to this effect) for her having praised Cory Booker for his 25-hour speech and having compared him to a famous CRM leader. I do not know what other context there is to that, and what you may have left out, buy given just what you wrote, I don't think you have any notion of what those terms mean, and I find it deeply, deeply offensive. So what if a black woman praised Cory Booker? Why does that make you so angry that you have to make accusations of nefarious behavior at her and post about it on our network? I swear. You do not provide much reason for people to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were unfairly swept up in a moderation request.

@M. Page-Lieberman - jotaemeisocial.coop Thank you so much for being the only person to genuinely take the time to engage with me in reference to that CM'd post. That means a lot to me, and you raise up a number of good points.

This wall of text does make it challenging to respond to. I've read it all, and I need time to digest. I do think that some assumptions have been made -- probably on both our parts -- that perhaps should be adjusted. I don't mind taking some heat if it means we get to have a discussion. My only exception: I will, later, have to address your mischaracterization of my comments about genocide denial -- given the way you have misinterpreted this you'd be right to be upset.

Is this your preferred way of interacting with you? Do you have another preference? Or would you prefer me not to respond at all?

Having seen the post in question (https://social.coop/@chrispomeroyhale/114289544943193140) honestly I would have reported you for racism too. Would you have challenged a white person holding the same sign? Or did you just accuse someone of "weaponising her blackness" for holding a sign referencing Mandela and being Black?

@Jules Bristow (afewbugs) Hey, I realize now this post was triggering, and am seeking guidance elsewhere

To answer your question: Yes, I would hold anyone to the same account, as it was the merit of the sign that I found challenging and sparked that reactionary post. The ordering of events in the real world was: I saw the sign. I went to the sign holder saying that I am confused by the sign. I relayed that I was struggling with comparing anti-apartheid Mandela with Booker who is actively sending bombs to support an apartheid state. They said Israel was complicated. I responded that it wasn't, and that I have been studying Palestine for x number of years. That was the sole perspective I was looking at this from. It was only thinking afterwards that experience that made me wonder... Whereas the recount in that post was not chronological

I had thought that, given the topic of apartheid, the topic of race was relevant? I am recognizing now that I was making an assumption about the other individual (and also the relevance of my perception of their gender), probably in a similar way to if someone looked at me and say "that's easy for a white person to say"

@chrispomeroyhale I think there are two issues here, firstly, in the context of everything going on in the world at the moment, I don't think someone holding a sign making a comparison you didn't agree with, at a protest about an issue you were presumably broadly in a agreement if you were there too, is necessarily the most productive use of everyone's time and energy at this present moment.

Secondly if what you say comes across as racist at first reading, the issue is not the need to provide more context or to criticise people for seeing it as racist. I'm white, I assume you are too. The duty is not on people of colour, who experience racism every day, to give every white person the benefit of the doubt when they say something racist whatever the intention behind it. The duty is on us as white people to make damn sure what we say and do is unambitiously not a racist aggression

Ahh. I want to take back my Thumbs Up for the original post now, but I can't see how to do that?