First episode I listened to was a justification for Russian nazis and the second I listened to called childless people losers. I don't care to listen to any more of it. Is the name a joke or something? Why would you name your website after these losers? The people on /r/blackwolffeed are nothing but terfs and hate on identity politics and trans people. I don't feel like the brand of leftism chapo is selling is something I want to buy. It's like hey free healthcare but your not a woman and don't mention race exists. If mods are gonna ban me for hating on this podcast than do it, I don't want to be here if they support it. However if you fine people don't like the podcast, I ask you for your support to change the name, because I haven't found a raunchier trans space. I recommend John Waters Fun House, can this thread just be a struggle session of coming up with better names than one of a shitty reactionary podcast? Thank you.
In the most constructive way possible, its... an odd look to agree with a poster who thinks parents should be randomly selected and nazis support "basic human rights," I don't think keeping/changing the name really matters, but yeah, this thread's OP kind of makes me uncomfortable a bit and shouldn't be given creedence
Lol, imagine doing the "I'm the one true leftist" bit unironically
it's why i laugh at the pipeline thing, a pipeline to what? this place is just vaguelefts and libs
i can count the people who have actually done anything irl here on two handscause all the smartest and most active organizers talk all about it online lol
mate, we're not smuggling coke or some shit
most people here aren't even in an orgAll I'm saying is anyone involved in anything real is probably quiet about it, it's just an assumption but by all means you're free to make it
dunno why you would be particularly quiet about it, it's not like anyone here is about to lead a maoist uprising, most people here have never been in a fistfight
Are the hosts transphobic? The show's too awful for me to listen to it, but I've never heard that accusation before.
The account is new so what, I've been lurking here for a while. Also I've never said anything about white people. I have a grudge against the anti identity politics crowd because they deny my existence. I listened to the podcast because I thought it wasn't transphobic but it was. So I asked the question about why I should stay here when its named after such an awful podcast and you know what people agree with what I'm feeling. The podcast sucks and I'm gonna scream it from a mountaintop. Chapo sucks chapo sucks chapo sucks.
You know what the pod sucks, can we all just agree on that?
:yes-comm:
Never listened to the podcast, have no sentimentality regarding it and frankly agree that the 'chapo' brand has outlasted it's usefulness.
That said, creating an account called 'chapoistransphobic' and immediately posting a thread where you depict yourself at the risk of being 'silenced' by the mods is over taking qualm with an vestigial name is, if not wrecking, then indistinguishable from it.
what is it wrecking though? the ability to not see a post about how chapo is transphobic? this is very low stakes
yeah i think this person is saying some weird, offensive and illogical stuff, i just wonder sometimes what we mean when we say wrecking. they could be trolling but like, are they infiltrating and stalling leftist movements? or just being annoying on a website?
idk maybe im misunderstanding how wrecking is usually used
some people here act like any refutation of their ideas is wrecking left unity when its really just that person may just be a dick whose wrong so i was confused
'Wrecking' is essentially any action taken to sow discord, exacerbate strife and undermine cohesion in a community.
What I was saying, while I don't know what the person's intent was, nor is it particularly pertinent to me, but the manner in which they have said some ' weird, offensive and illogical stuff' has all the attributes of wrecking.
To be honest I expected to get banned for posting this. If I was I wouldn't of stayed. I just wanted to share my true thoughts on the podcast because Ive been lurking here for a while and I figured I should say something. I got to say that everyone here has been positively smashing when it comes to the podcast being shit.
Criticism is important, and the manner in which it is delivered is almost equally important. As someone who has been lurking here for awhile, you should be aware that this community has frequently been the subject of attacks from trolls and etc who've boasted on other boards that they deliberately cultivate strife masquerading under the pretense of concern over important issues.
I'm not a lib, I won't dictate to you how to express your frustrations nor demand any ridiculous notion of 'civility' but criticism must be delivered in a clear, concise manner that invites discussion and a clear path to working to a solution in the community, rather than vague, hyperbolic accusations and insinuations that generate nothing productive and is a favorite method of 'wreckers' to weaken communities.
This. We're a totally different breed from the podcast. I do wonder if we're eventually going to get a name change to like hex.chat or something.
That's a good name. Yeah I stopped listening to the pod ages ago, the only thing I have a passing interest in is Matt and even sometimes he pisses me off.
I'm glad an admin agrees with me on this. The quicker this site disassociates with the podcast the better. So like will chapo.chat just redirect to hexbear.net?
Make it so that the branding in the upper left corner just reflects whatever URL was used and we can end this argument with everyone declaring victory.
No. We should stay Chapo exactly because the podcast hates it. The same reason why you use guillotine, bourgeoisie and proletariat. The language that drives fear into the heart of your enemy is the language you should employ.
They are our enemy and us using their name annoys them. So we should keep trying to annoy them until we are bigger then the pod.
When I first tried to get PSL to come on for an AMA, I had to explain that we aren’t associated with the shitlib podcast and beg them to look at what we’re actually posting so they know we’re farther left than the garbage podcast, and then I had to fucking explain the lore of the site to assure them that website wasn’t dedicated to the podcast.
Well that's pretty sad of the PSL lol because even if we were with the pod they should be happy to reach out to any big audience. If it's really the case then go ahead. I don't care that much. I just thought our name was inconsequential but apparently it isn't.
I’m with you. Please change the name. The sooner the better. Then I can tell people irl to come here without having to explain what chapo is all about.
I couldn't even get PSL to reply to me when I tried to join, so I'm not sure that says that much
How does this meaningfully work towards building a cohesive socialist community?
You're being sarcastic but that's a more effective and honest way of bridging ideological differences then anything else. A common target of ridicule builds a better community.
That's a false equivalence and you know it. Chapo and Rowling are in no way comparable to each other. Keeping the name is also piggybacking of the pod's reach and success. Leaving out its ideology, we'll never get a profile in the NYT but the pod did and if someone searches for a a community around the pod we'll be the ones standing. There are material benefits to keeping the name. You know I was first like whatever but you example was not made in good faith and it's making me reconsider.
The first one was me exaggerating for comiedic effect. As one does on a meme website.
You'll never get a cohesive socialist community unless you find points of unity or a common enemy.
If a group of Brooklyn podcasters with a massive audience ranging from socdems to communists is your "enemy" rather than a simple annoyance, and you think that naming an internet forum after them somehow "drives fear into their hearts," you should really do some self reflection and think about how you ever got to this point in your life.
Do you think the name should be kept? I see almost no discussion of the podcast on this site except when they say something stupid. Do you have a better name idea?
Beyond the colleagal bit (I love you guys) i do have a reason: https://hexbear.net/post/89673/comment/982162
Might be flimsy but it's a reason non the less.
I was fine with the name being retained during the initial phase of the community's existence, when we wanted to establish ourselves as an successor to the subreddit and attract as many people here as possible. Now that the well has dried up, we should move forward with divorcing ourselves from, as you succinctly put it, a 'shitlib' podcast.
I'm also a fan of 'Hexbear' and I think we should just change it to that.
Yeah, nazis believe that white people deserve basic welfare. Doesn't mean they are my allies. You can't just support social welfare and be an ally, you gotta support the other things too like public healthcare covering transitioning costs and sensible antiraciat laws.
if you weren't against the subreddit while you were on the subreddit, were you even there?
It’s a basic principle of communist organizing to work with the working class as it actually exists and in the spaces it actually exists. This doesn’t mean you indulge bigotry, but this is the basic avenue by which you raise the political level—you connect the dots between ordinary people’s lived experiences and the broader historical struggle to which we all belong, consciously or unconsciously.
I’m not saying like proper communist organizing was taking place on the subreddit, but it was probably the most active left online space on one of the largest websites on the internet. This directly tracked the popularity of the podcast itself, which itself tracked a deep and massive shift in consciousness across the US working class following the crisis in 2008. Chapo traphouse, in podcast or subreddit form, became popular for broadly the same reasons that Bernie Sanders became popular.
Are any of these perfect expressions of a working class political project with crystal clear political consciousness?
No, obviously not. But people don’t immediately jump to conclusions that they have no experiential basis to draw.
These were the ideas and spaces that were available, and the growth in popularity reflected the growth of a layer of the working class that is looking for socialist ideas and spaces to discuss them.
On the subreddit, it was entirely possible to present a proper Marxist analysis of the futility of working in the Democratic Party to a receptive audience of hundreds or thousands of people. People who literally had not ever thought of the problem from a class perspective. Like for something as low-investment as internet posting, if you are a principled socialist you couldn’t really ask for a better place to “waste” a few hours.
I’m not talking about converting or coddling reactionaries here, I’m talking about engaging with people who are upset with the status quo and genuinely looking for an idea of the way out. Honestly the chapo name might not make much of a difference for this site’s trajectory, but my point is that it doesn’t hurt to cast a bigger net.
Believing that Chapo dictates people's political beliefs (ie turns them from a good leftist into a reactionary leftist) is the same kind of thought as the brand recognition people though. The brand recognition people think the aesthetics and the podcast turns people into good leftists. Both share the idea that a radio show is responsible for people's politics and what happens with the leftist project. It's ahistorical, not dialectical, and certainly lacks materialism.
That being said I'm 100% fine with a name change. arctic.chat would be cool because arctic means where the bears live, though it does also carry a connotation for the global north, which is a minus. arct itself just means bear. but arct.chat is a little weird.
If we're building a pipeline we need to build one that gets people out of this headspace of thinking the battle for the soul of the world is in policing media consumption. Even if Chapo was a literal Nazi podcast, it has absolutely nothing to do with what people are doing on the streets right now.
Its true every time mr menaker mentions the word chapo we get paid in royalties
Episode 498 is just natalist garbage. I forget which one had the nazbol garbage. Don't really want to listen to it again. Can anyone help me out here?
hating crotchspawn is actually a queer identity, and making fun of /r/childfree is homophobia
Can you explain to me what exactly is wrong with not having children?
Nothing wrong at all
What exactly is so good about natalism?
The same way it's good that people also have a choice to not have children; bodily autonomy is dope. Taking away that choice or chiding people either way is not dope.
Do you think the earth can support 10 billion people?
Yes.
All with automobiles and decent living standards?
That will never happen in the global south and the global north has an aging population, growth is slowing or tending negative. The only places where pupulation is rising is the south and they need to because they're incredibly poor and labor is the sole source of income for families.
I think the right to have a child should be random so no eugenic breeding.
Ok this is weird.
Im not claiming to have an educated take. But you have to admit overpopulation is a problem if we don't want to kill the earth. I want the right answer, I'm perfectly capable of changing my mind when faced with new evidence. But everywhere I look I see plastic garbage, can't escape it in nature. I don't want eco fascism, but that will be the solution if another is not found.
Can you explain to me what exactly is wrong with not having children?
There's nothing wrong with not having children, or making the personal choice to not have a child. However, it's a perfectly normal desire to have and raise children, and it's a basic human drive and a part of the human experience. It's one of the reasons that gay/trans adoption is such a big issue- LGBTQ people should absolutely have the right to raise children just like straight people. Leftists should argue fiercely for creating a world in which children are cared for and supported economically, and the material conditions allow people to have and raise them comfortably. Young people today are not having children at nearly the same rates as their parents because capitalism makes it extremely difficult.
Do you think the earth can support 10 billion people? All with automobiles and decent living standards?
This is Malthusianism, which is deeply reactionary, and Karl Marx disproved it over a hundred years ago.
Again that episode wasn't to promote having children, it was about dunking on the very reactionary r/childfree subreddit. Also, love calling Chapo fascist while repeating tired eugenicist talking points playing up overpopulation.
It’s about the lack of consent from a bundle of cells that is being brought into this world against their will ... I don’t think bringing someone into this world where they will suffer is a choice that we should make for them
Genocide, but make it woke.
Like, I get that's not your intention, but that's how anti-natalism comes off to me whenever I read it. It warps a narrow view of morality to the point of advocating genocide to prevent potential "suffering."
I mean it's totally legitimate not to agree but choosing to not have children is not genocide
I'm not responding to one's choice to have or not have children.
I'm responding to the perspective that reproduction is immoral because a child cannot consent to existing. That is a genocidal perspective on reproduction.
Imagine being so offended by a moral argument that your immediate response is accusations of genocide. Like what is the reasoning here? Genocide against which group?
This reminds me of the common response to vegan/vegetarian arguments, where it's clear people are just getting defensive and lashing out.
I did not make any "accusation of genocide." I said that anti-natalism is a genocidal worldview. If there's another way to interpret 'reproduction is immoral & a violation of consent', lemme know. I'd say the same thing about anyone spouting Malthusian nonsense here.
Philosophers: This is a violation of consent, and thus immoral. You: That's a genocidal view.
Lmao you don't even deny the claim, just throw out some vague bullshit about how making claims like that is somehow tied to crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, the claim is seriously discussed in academic philosophy but you just repeat to yourself "the only valid response is accusations of genocide".
As far as attempts to shut down discussion go, throwing out the word genocide as a kneejerk response is pretty weak. But you do you, the rest of us will bother with arguments.
Well-respected philosophers on the Left: Assuming “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.” [1]
Me, a fucking idiot: That's pedophilia.
Some philosophy post-grad: These claims are taken seriously in philosophy, you can't just call it pedophilic, you are shutting down important discussions.
The metaphysical nonsense that emotionally damaged philosophers vomit has material implications. I get that some people have weird hang-ups about children. But if you are arguing that "reproduction is a violation of consent & immoral" in a world where the suppression of reproduction is widely used in ongoing genocides, you are arguing for a genocidal worldview.
Feel free to retreat from reality into your own thought experiments, that's generally where philosophers go when they run out of interesting things to say.
These claims are not taken seriously in philosophy. A French interview from the 70s is not evidence that a view is in the contemporary mainstream. If you're looking to strawman the views held by philosophers, why not dig up some misogynistic line from Plato while you're at it?
Kneejerk dismissal of ideas because of some tenuous possible connection with the ideology of your enemies is intellectually lazy. Since you've refused to make a real argument for your core claim, I'll see if I can fill in the blanks.
- The idea that X is immoral leads to state suppression of X.
- Selective state suppression of X can be a mechanism for genocide.
- Therefore, we must reject the possibility that X is immoral or we are complicit in genocide.
Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your reasoning. My problem with #1 is personal moral views are not endorsement or advocacy for coersive state action. I may believe that consuming animal products is unethical, but I don't think the government should force people to be vegan. Further, I don't believe antinatalism has actually been the ideological justification for any legislation, because ultimately it's a fringe view. As for #2, the racist application of laws is not an indictment of those laws, unless you believe the only laws that should exist are those that cannot possibly be selectively applied to achieve racist ends.
Environmentalism is another idea that roughly fits this pattern. Environmentalist views lead to environmental legislation, which is enacted and applied in a racist slipshod fashion to further harm the disenfranchised. With the rise of eco-fascism we're going to see environmental concerns used to justify genocide, but I hope that doesn't mean that voicing environmental concerns implicates us in genocide.
You should just say "I don't want to have kids" if that's what you meant.
That is much different than anti-natalism, which considers reproduction a moral failure.
ok but like for most people life is not solely suffering. I'm not trying to argue against adoption, but whenever i hear this stuff it just seems like anti-natalists are insanely depressed. having kids is not subjecting them to pain any more than it's subjecting them to joy. living, it's good folks
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/antinatalism
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/childfree
antinatalists are 90x more likely to post in /r/suicidewatch?? that can't really be right, can it?
childfree is listed as 30x more likely to post in /r/depression
I have nothing against the existence of children, I'm not neither explicitly pro or anti natalist. I have a problem with heterosexuals thinking they are superior because they have a litter of children.
Regardless, the hosts dunked on /r/childfree in that episode, it wasn't about these arguments over the best way to raise children- they were making fun of people who outright hate children.
And they've never once defended Russian Nazis. In their recent interview with Adam Curtis, they did discuss the history of Edward Limonov, if that's what you're talking about, but their analysis of him was pretty nuanced.
Chapo Trap House? Whats that? Isnt that the term for a drug house of a Mexican drug lords?
Nah, This is the official site for the Citations Needed podcast
damn that sucks for you. congrats on this real, good faith post on chapo.chat
So I'll piggy back off this to do my weekly request to change the site name to Hexbear.
They're gonna rename the site I think. Also you're getting correctly ratioed lol
