Thread by @N7IRL

I can basically sort of see the logic underpinning the idea that Rogan fans are worth reaching out to, but not centrists.

If one is embracing the basic framework that all oppression/injustice is economic in nature, there are no marginalized populations, poverty oppresses equally

Identity-based bigotries are then a set of lies being sold by the wealthy to disrupt class solidarity.

Workers are turned against each other by those with wealth and power, the insistence that white and/or cis and/or male workers have privilege over others is part of the lies.

This is how we get the insistence that concepts like intersectionality are neoliberal; they seek to reinforce that oppression can be identity based and that you do not need to have much wealth or power to participate in oppression, which this view rejects.

From this point of view, any and all attempts to reframe injustice or oppression in terms of identity only distracts from the basic truth that all oppression is the wealthy oppressing the poor; worse, that distraction divides the working class further.

The sort of people who listen to Rogan, then, are bigoted only to the extent that they believe the lies that divide the working poor, and then are antagonized by the insistence that in embracing these beliefs they are exercising a sort of privilege and participating in oppression

The idea then becomes that those people can be appealed to on an economic level, and will move away from these bigotries if they can be shown it all serves to divide the working class to keep us poor.

Those continuing to insist that identity informs oppression and privilege, on the other hand, are seen as not only reinforcing class-based oppression, but the corporate, neoliberal coopting of identity politics is seen as evidence it serves their agenda by design.

So anyone supporting these concepts is thus a neoliberal class traitor, or among the bourgeoise themselves, and thus acting in support of an agenda that would deny people healthcare and continue to bomb civilians in other countries.

They're part of the establishment because the establishment is defined around anyone refusing to embrace that all oppression is economic, including those fighting for reproductive, accessibility, and gender reaffirming justice, no matter how poor those people might actually be.

It's a reductive and nearsighted understanding of the world which nonetheless has an internal logic that's hard to shake people out of, especially when the arguments against it involve trying to convince people of things they've already dismissed as neoliberal.

It's why people can tell themselves that transphobes are worth reaching out to, even as trans people protest - the transphobe and their target are both seen as sharing the same material needs and the transphobe has only been fooled into competing economically.

But the person arguing that the transphobe's embrace of hate makes them not worth reaching out to is seen as encouraging a continuation of that same divide.

I don't know how one appeals to someone who has embraced this framework.

From their perspective, THEIR position is the one seeking justice, arguing against it is seeking division.