How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[NinjaCow64]

Now let me see.

This is AOC

View attachment 564823
and this is Astroturf.

View attachment 564825

Well neither are dark matter or frozen stars.

lmao, genuinely hilarious

(There are other posts I want to engage with in this thread, but I am tired, so I will do so later).

 

[NinjaCow64]

Actually one more for the road.

The current progressive message is that society is primarily structured around race; that a person's racial identity is the most important thing about them; that the contest for resources and power between races is a zero-sum game; that the advancement of one race is only achieved by the degradation of another.

How is that not playing the enemy's game?

Progressive/Liberal =/= Leftist come on man you know that. Liberal solutions always fall short. Pretending that Leftists should not engage with or address racial issues is a losing set because racism and classism is inherently tied (as I've discussed earlier). Also not even most Liberals believe all the stuff you just said they do and certainly not most Leftists.

 

[Synobun]

that the advancement of one race is only achieved by the degradation of another.

The only people who believe this are those lamenting the impending "white genocide," and I wouldn't exactly describe those folks as progressives.

 

[Senethro]

The current progressive message is that society is primarily structured around race; that a person's racial identity is the most important thing about them; that the contest for resources and power between races is a zero-sum game; that the advancement of one race is only achieved by the degradation of another.

How is that not playing the enemy's game?

Right-wingers say that they are sick of hearing about race and gender and sexuality, but it's all they ever want to talk about, because they think that it's an argument which they can win. They don't want to talk about class, they don't want to talk about wages or infrastructure or social services, because it takes all of about thirty second for it to become evident that they are at odds with the great majority of voters on that terrain.

Just because we stop talking racism, doesn't mean they'll stop doing racism. In fact, I'd be sure its the opposite.

 

[Gorbles]

The current progressive message is that society is primarily structured around race; that a person's racial identity is the most important thing about them; that the contest for resources and power between races is a zero-sum game; that the advancement of one race is only achieved by the degradation of another.

How is that not playing the enemy's game?

A lot of leftists I'm aware of espouse intersectionality as default and recognise the complex intersection of race, class and gender in the resulting makeup of countries like the US.

What you're describing (zero-sum aside, @Synsensa covered my reaction to that nicely) sounds a lot more liberal; the mainstreaming of progressive concepts (and thus either their dilution, or their simplification). So we go from "race is very important in the US in particular" to "race is the only thing that matters" (apparently).

We can talk about class. Heck, we manage it enough here in OT. I don't see the problem you're positing, especially in leftist / progressive circles. Not that I can speak for them all - perhaps we need a bit of a popular example?

 

[Traitorfish]

Progressive/Liberal =/= Leftist come on man you know that. Liberal solutions always fall short. Pretending that Leftists should not engage with or address racial issues is a losing set because racism and classism is inherently tied (as I've discussed earlier). Also not even most Liberals believe all the stuff you just said they do and certainly not most Leftists.

How many "leftists", by this definition, are there in the United States, as compared to progressives? How wide-reaching are leftist platforms, compared to progressive platforms? How much influence do leftists exert over public discourse as compared to progressives? How clearly do the general public distinguish between "leftists" and progressives, and how clearly does this distinction impact their likelihood to support a given policy, candidate or political party?

Ordinary voters don't care about the fine gradations of online political identity, they just see that "the left" is advancing frivolous representational politics over substantive reforms, and they draw the understandable and often bluntly very accurate conclusion that "the left" doesn't have anything to offer them.

Just because we stop talking racism, doesn't mean they'll stop doing racism. In fact, I'd be sure its the opposite.

It's not whether you talk about racism, it's how. The current progressive commonsense is a framework of "white privilege" in which all white people experience tangible benefits from a racially unjust society and must be prepared to experience and equally tangible decline in the quality of their lives. This presentation of the relationship between racial groups as fundamentally antagonist is purest ambrosia to racists, because it affirms what they have been saying all along, that if things get better for black and brown people, they must inevitably get worse for white people, and that if things are to get better for white people, they should expect that things will get worse for black and brown people. Progressives may still be able to contend that white people have a moral obligation to accept this unhappy unreality, but when times are hard, these sorts of abstract moral obligations are the first thing that people jettison.

The very last thing that racists want you to talk about is class, because that completely disrupts this narrative of racial antagonism. An argument from class asserts that white people and black and brown people stand to gain the most when they work together; that improving the material condition of working class black and brown people goes hand-in-hand with improving the material conditions of working class white people. It threatens the central pillar of their entire political project.

The only people who believe this are those lamenting the impending "white genocide," and I wouldn't exactly describe those folks as progressives.

The prevailing perspective among progressives is that white people have to make conscious efforts to give up power and wealth in favour of black and brown people. This may sound fair and reasonable when contextualised within elite institutions, and in practice this is the intent, to argue for a more demographically-representative distribution of positions and resources within elite institutions. But to working class people, of any race, this sounds sort of rhetoric sounds absolutely dystopian when applied to their own lives and communities. I don't think that progressives mean this to be so, but I think it occurs because many of them, and certainly those given the most visible platforms by the elite institutions in which they are situated, haven't given serious thought to how this reasoning applies outside of elite institutions, haven't given serious thought about what racial justice looks like for working class communities, and that is the fundamental problem.

A lot of leftists I'm aware of espouse intersectionality as default and recognise the complex intersection of race, class and gender in the resulting makeup of countries like the US.

What you're describing (zero-sum aside, @Synsensa covered my reaction to that nicely) sounds a lot more liberal; the mainstreaming of progressive concepts (and thus either their dilution, or their simplification). So we go from "race is very important in the US in particular" to "race is the only thing that matters" (apparently).

"Intersectionality" is just a word, it doesn't represent commitment to any actual policies or programs. In practice, American progressives present race as the most fundamental organising logic of American society, and racial identity as the most important characteristic a person carries. They may not be committed to this framework in any particular enduring way: a few years, gender was often presented as equally or more fundamental than race. In both cases, class was placed in the background, and when it was acknowledged, it was in the flimsy framework of "classism", of prejudices about background and upbringing, rather than of class a material reality.

 

[Senethro]

Where in the world has the white (or local majority) working class made common cause with all other groups, instead of collaborating with the ruling class in creating a special lower rung for other groups to occupy?

I believe that class issues are the major issue and division in society. But attempts to solve them (to me) look as if they are undermined by some groups betraying others. I support progressive causes because I want us to be ready when opportunity comes. (as well as having their own valuable short term goals)

 

[Gorbles]

"Intersectionality" is just a word, it doesn't represent commitment to any actual policies or programs. In practice, American progressives present race as the most fundamental organising logic of American society, and racial identity as the most important characteristic a person carries. They may not be committed to this framework in any particular enduring way: a few years, gender was often presented as equally or more fundamental than race. In both cases, class was placed in the background, and when it was acknowledged, it was in the flimsy framework of "classism", of prejudices about background and upbringing, rather than of class a material reality.

But we weren't discussing commitment to actual policies or programs. You were makings claims as to the default position, or positions at least pushed, by progressives (as a group).

Regardless, I understand your concern of the sidelining of class. I just don't think it bears out, and if it does, there are plenty of people (admittedly mainly on social media) I can point you in the direction of. They're mostly games developers though; games and software is my primary entry point into such things (which might speak for why I get a lot of mileage out of class-based arguments, because they're always topical with regards to employee protections, crunch, and so on).

There will always be something that is more topical than the previous thing. If we're presenting this as a discussion on how best to present talking points (which I thought you were; for better and more effective dissemination and thus discussion), then intersectionality shouldn't be something you put down as "just a word".

 

[Traitorfish]

Where in the world has the white (or local majority) working class made common cause with all other groups, instead of collaborating with the ruling class in creating a special lower rung for other groups to occupy?

Where in the world would we discover such a creature as "the white working class"?

This questions displays the very assumptions that I'm highlighting, that society is fundamentally structured along racial lines, and that the "white working class" and the "black working class" must constitute clear and distinct social classes, which have separate interests and act as distinct groups. It represents the assumption of racial antagonism which underlies so much of contemporary progressive thought, and which is so appealing to conservatives because it at least superficially reproduces in different language what they have been saying for years.

There is nothing so delightful to the conservative ears as a progressive invoking the spectre of the "white working class", because he knows that the fundamental terrain of the debate has been conceded to him.

But we weren't discussing commitment to actual policies or programs. You were makings claims as to the default position, or positions at least pushed, by progressives (as a group).

Regardless, I understand your concern of the sidelining of class. I just don't think it bears out, and if it does, there are plenty of people (admittedly mainly on social media) I can point you in the direction of. They're mostly games developers though; games and software is my primary entry point into such things (which might speak for why I get a lot of mileage out of class-based arguments, because they're always topical with regards to employee protections, crunch, and so on).

There will always be something that is more topical than the previous thing. If we're presenting this as a discussion on how best to present talking points (which I thought you were; for better and more effective dissemination and thus discussion), then intersectionality shouldn't be something you put down as "just a word".

To clarify, I don't pretend that nobody is talking about class issues; Bernie Sanders came within reasonable distance of the Democratic candidacy on an essentially class-based program, so these ideas obviously have some currency. But the degree towards which this turn towards class has been understood by both its advocates and critics as a challenge to mainstream progressive thought tends to undermine the claim that progressives have previously regarded class as one of several "intersectional" concerns.

The proof of that can I think be found in the sort of comment which started this discussion: conservatives acknowledging that progressives describe Western society as structured by "white supremacy", by systems which are stated to systematically advantage white people and disadvantage black and brown people, and highlighting that this is intuitively inconsistent with the fact that a small but visible number of black and brown people possess wealth and power far beyond the great majority of white people. Conservative are aware that progressives emphasise disparities in economic outcomes to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism, but they also know that progressives tend to explain this narrowly in strictly racial terms, to compare black poverty with white affluence, and that progressive have no coherent theory to explain black affluence or white poverty, that they can only acknowledge these latter phenomena as things which just sort of happen. If progressive thought took class seriously, this vulnerability would not exist, and the line of attack would not consequently be taken.

 

[Senethro]

The racial antagonism is there because the conservatives put it there - it is not invented - and it needs exorcised before it can be put to rest.

 

[Traitorfish]

The racial antagonism is there because the conservatives put it there - it is not invented - and it needs exorcised before it can be put to rest.

Conservatives didn't simply beam racist ideas in white worker's brains. These ideas are derived from lived experience, from environments in which white workers are encouraged to see themselves as distinct from and in competition with black and brown workers. It follows that these ideas are best overcome in the same way, by giving white workers and black and brown workers common cause, by placing them in environments in which they identify with each other and in which they see themselves as sharing common goals. People overcome received ideas of racism when they recognise that what benefits black and brown workers benefits white workers, and what benefits white workers benefits black and brown workers.

Contemporary progressive discourse about "white privilege" are antithetical towards this, because at a very fundamental level it reproduces the assumptions of difference and conflict between white workers and black and brown. They reject at a fairly basic level the idea that what benefits black and brown workers is good for white workers, and vice versa; improving the condition of black and brown workers is inevitably framed as a ceding of "privilege" by white workers, of accepting reduced status. I don't have a lot of time for the concept of "white guilt", but it does reflect the contemporary progressive tendency to believe that racial justice is achieved by instilling in white people a sense of responsibility to black and brown people, without ever attempting to close the gap in identification, to find any common ground either in citizenship or in class.

 

[cardgame]

My hometown is 99% white, Traitorfish. What course of action do you suggest in an environment such as this?

These ideas are derived from environments in which white workers are encouraged to see themselves as distinct from and in competition with black and brown workers.

Encouraged how, by who or by what mechanism? Conservatives who own the power structures send this message downstream.

 

[AdamCrock]

exorcised

In Nomine Patri ... Please God, let there be no (insert here)

 

[Gorbles]

To clarify, I don't pretend that nobody is talking about class issues; Bernie Sanders came within reasonable distance of the Democratic candidacy on an essentially class-based program, so these ideas obviously have some currency. But the degree towards which this turn towards class has been understood by both its advocates and critics as a challenge to mainstream progressive thought tends to undermine the claim that progressives have previously regarded class as one of several "intersectional" concerns.

The proof of that can I think be found in the sort of comment which started this discussion: conservatives acknowledging that progressives describe Western society as structured by "white supremacy", by systems which are stated to systematically advantage white people and disadvantage black and brown people, and highlighting that this is intuitively inconsistent with the fact that a small but visible number of black and brown people possess wealth and power far beyond the great majority of white people. Conservative are aware that progressives emphasise disparities in economic outcomes to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism, but they also know that progressives tend to explain this narrowly in strictly racial terms, to compare black poverty with white affluence, and that progressive have no coherent theory to explain black affluence or white poverty, that they can only acknowledge these latter phenomena as things which just sort of happen. If progressive thought took class seriously, this vulnerability would not exist, and the line of attack would not consequently be taken.

Every single leftist I would recommend has been enthusiastically (to the point of being the "Bernie Bro" stereotype) supportive of Sanders' recognition of class issues. Maybe it's a problem that we come (very understandably - as popular as the people I follow are, statistically they're still anecdotal I'd imagine) from different spheres in this regard.

I've maintained this in a lot of threads (to various pushback), but when you raise what happening in this discussion, I'm compelled to point out that OT is not overwhelmingly leftist (compared to what a number of not-leftist posters think). There's a good amount of leftist theory and discussion at times, but in terms of actual numericised (?) posters, no greater than any other vague ideological grouping. That said, there's been an uptick recently. People coming back? I have no idea. I'm a relatively "young" OT-er, heh. The point being, for you to claim what happens here as proof? When in the threads here I barely ever get to have the querying / disagreeing / reconciliatory conversations I see elsewhere (in more dedicated left-leaning spaces) online? I don't see it.

In practise this gets a lot messier. White privilege is a simple enough generic concept, but it's by exploiting the edge cases that conservatives gain the foothold you're criticising progressives for leaving open. Surely the better response there would be to work on messaging? I came from perhaps the most insulated background a white cis guy can come from. My parents were working class, and I lucked into a private high school by dint of a) being volunteered (by my primary school in an impoverished suburb) and b) by acing the entrance exam so that I was afforded a bursary (one of less than a handful awarded per year). I had zero exposure to my overall neighbourhood growing up except getting beaten up by a whole range of racial demographics. I don't think progressives aren't taking class seriously. I think they are (on the whole), but the whole point about wedge issues is that they can be exploited. You're not going to argue (nor am I saying you would argue) that trans rights are a wedge issue therefore they shouldn't be discussed. Race is an important issue, on a par or even greater than class at times depending on the context. Class is also important. Marginalising one for the other in general is bad. But you seem to be focusing on the context where race is applicable? And then saying that focusing on race is bad? Which is what the US is right now. Massively racially-focused in all of the worst ways. Class-based segregation is a part of that (see: stereotypes about coastal elites vs. anywhere inland, or even stereotypes of how "lost" the southern states are when there are tons of progressives in those areas). But you can't say race isn't important. But your problems seem to be rooted in that being prioritised, largely in popular culture. Which doesn't make sense to me.

Progressives explain black affluence well. White poverty, again, well. Intersectionality isn't a buzzword, it's a key principle in balancing these axes of marginalisation - of which class is included (in the discussions and dissemination, to be clear). I don't know who you class as progressives here, which is perhaps a problem. It's why I asked for some kind of popular example. If your examples are some mainstream kind of group, or figure, or whatever? Maybe that's something that can be argued, or even conceded, I don't know. But "progressives" here doesn't match up with the progressives I know of, which is why I want to understand better where your theory is coming from here.

 

[Angst]

I'm also unsure what exactly leftism entails atm. Many CFC OT'ers discuss economics at least influenced by classical left thinkers, but as I noted in another thread, capitalism can only really be saved on principles that were first really established (if at least popularized) by Marx himself. So are you a leftist if you want to save capitalism by virtue of recognizing the problems that Marx predicted and have since been proven? I dunno. Good right wingers consider the problems at hand and try to find a way to solve them in a way that safeguards the status quo as much as possible. This entails the inclusion of left economics in making concrete solutions to the problems at hand.

If anything, CFC "leftism" is pretty much emblematic of the left today, in that they're often discussing with each other based on severe differences in ideology moreso than truly uniting as a unison and targeting the right. I often joke that if one wants to see aggressive debate, find an anarchist and an anarcho-syndicalist and put them in the same room, but it's not wholly unture.

 

[AdamCrock]

Speaking of : (a picture worth more than a 1000 words) :

 

[Lexicus]

Encouraged how, by who or by what mechanism? Conservatives who own the power structures send this message downstream.

Well, exactly. The time-honored institutions of white supremacy. I mean, really, the ruling-class project of encouraging white workers to view themselves as distinct from black slaves goes back to the 17th century here in the US.

Every single leftist I would recommend has been enthusiastically (to the point of being the "Bernie Bro" stereotype) supportive of Sanders' recognition of class issues. Maybe it's a problem that we come (very understandably - as popular as the people I follow are, statistically they're still anecdotal I'd imagine) from different spheres in this regard.

But not even close to every single "progressive" is a leftist. Indeed, many "progressives" are openly contemptuous of anticapitalism, or at the least believe that it is useless to try to fight capitalism.

And then saying that focusing on race is bad?

Yeah, see this whole line of argument is exactly what Traitorfish is criticizing. Setting up "race" and "class" as abstractions, and then adding the notion that to talk about one necessarily means ignoring the other, is exactly the trap that Traitorfish was describing. Traitorfish is explicitly calling for a unified program which addresses both race and class, and you interpret that as "focusing on race is bad."

I would suggest to anyone interested to read Adolph Reed's writing about "antiracism" for a greater understanding of some of these issues. Reed is a Marxist scholar who is highly critical of the "race-first" turn of liberal/left politics in the later decades of the 20th century; as he puts it, contemporary "antiracism"

seems to reflect, several generations downstream, the victory of the postwar psychologists in depoliticizing the critique of racial injustice by shifting its focus from the social structures that generate and reproduce racial inequality to an ultimately individual, and ahistorical, domain of “prejudice” or “intolerance.”

It's why I asked for some kind of popular example.

Here's one: polling has consistently shown that upwards of 90% of Democrats rate Barack Obama's presidency as "good" or "excellent." What happened to class inequality under Barack Obama's administration? What does this suggest about the class politics held by upwards of 90% of Democrats?

I am not sure how far these "progressives" you are talking about overlap with the Democrats, but if there is little or no overlap it is likely that the "progressives" you are describing are a politically-insignificant fringe anyway. When I say "progressive" I am talking about, at least, a substantial fraction of Democratic voters.

 

[Crezth]

My hometown is 99% white, Traitorfish. What course of action do you suggest in an environment such as this?

Encouraged how, by who or by what mechanism? Conservatives who own the power structures send this message downstream.

They don't speak for Traitorfish, but the answer of the Black Panther Party was to build parallel power structures servicing the workers, defended with armed workers, and delivering political education about the nature of class and capitalism to the masses.

Where Traitorfish is coming from should not be considered too controversial to anyone who is engaged with leftist thinking. Racial separation is baked into our collective unconscious and enforced materially by a sophisticated colonialist system, but this is not a natural state of affairs: it is a constructed state of affairs, constructed by capitalists as part of their imperialist ventures solely for the point of reinforcing false consciousness in workers and, therefore, being permitted to indulge the very worst exploitations against those workers it can most successfully marginalize and isolate. The so-called "class reductionist" view is correct, but the system is designed to make that difficult to perceive.

The capitalist system, by virtue of being an imperialist system, naturally splits workers into groups in order to marginalize them and allow them to only collectively organize in those marginalized groups, in for example the turning of entire countries into colonies where those workers are separated from workers of other nations. Since these workers are separated from their international comrades by force, the class struggle in these countries manifests as national liberation, where the proximal struggle of being kept down as a nation premeditates the ultimate struggle of the liberation of the global working class (so to speak).

The white workers, meanwhile, cultivate a false consciousness about their status relative to these colonized workers. It is this false consciousness that makes them docile, useful idiots of the capitalist system. The question is how do you dismantle the false consciousness of white privilege?

Fred Hampton - It's a Class Struggle, Goddammit

First of all, we say primarily that the priority of this struggle is class. That Marx, and Lenin, and Che Guevara end Mao Tse-Tung and anybody else that has ever said or knew or practiced anything about revolution, always said that revolution is a class struggle. It was one class--the oppressed--those other class--the oppressor. And it's got to be a universal fact. Those that don't admit to that are those that don't want to get involved in a revolution, because they know that as long as they're dealing with a race thing, they'll never be involved in a revolution. They can talk about numbers; they can hang you up in many, many ways, but as soon as you start talking about class, then you got to start talking about some guns. And that's what the Party had to do.

When the Party started to talk about class struggle, we found that we had to start talking about some guns. If we never negated the fact that there was racism in America, but we said that when you, the by-product, what comes off of racism, that capitalism comes first and next is racism. That when they brought slaves over here, it was to take money. So first the idea came that we want to make money, then the slaves came in order to make that money. That means that capitalism had to, through historical fact, racism had to come from capitalism. It had to be capitalism first and racism was a by-product of that.

[...]

People talking about the Party co-opted by white folks. That’s what that mini-fascist, Stokely Carmichael said. He’s nothing but a jackanapes. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a jackanapes, cause I’ve been knowing him for years, and that’s all he could be, if he go around murder-mouthin’ the Black Panther Party.

If we’re co-opted by white people, then check the locations of our offices, our breakfast program, our free health clinic is opening up probably this Sunday at 16th and Springfield. No does everybody know where 16th and Springfield is at? That’s not in Winnetka, you understand. That’s not in Dekalb. That’s in Babylon. That’s in the heart of Babylon, Brothers and Sisters.

And that free health clinic was put there because we know where the problem is at. We know that black people are most oppressed. And if we didn’t know that, then why the hell would we be running around talking about the black liberation struggle has to be the vanguard for all liberation struggles? If there’s ever going to be any liberation in the mother country, ever gonna be any liberation in the colony, then we got to be liberated by the leadership of the Black Panther Party and the black liberation struggle. We don’t negate that fact.

 

[Moriarte]

People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The genetic fallacy, which is a fallacy strongly related to the ad hominem fallacy. I find it surprising that you don't know what the genetic fallacy is considering how strongly you advocate for avoiding informal fallacies.

Still pulled from the butt. It's not unreasonable to block asinine post-history posters for behavior and keep them blocked for that behavior. Like I said, make your arguments or don't, leave others out of it.

Lets say I was debating the merits (or lack of merits) of a fictional substance Skub with John McGenericname, President of the anti-Skub league, an organisation known for spreading lies about Skub. In your opinion, would it be an ad hominem to mention John McGenericname's association and active involvement in an organisation that has been proven to spread lies about Skub in a debate about Skub?

Yes, that is ad hominem. Whatever you feel about anti-Skub man, things he is saying in the debate itself are either true or not true and the points made are either valid or not valid. Who says/makes them doesn't change their reality, and their reality can be addressed irrespective of anti-Skub man's history.

If anti-Skub had personally harassed you or otherwise demonstrated himself unfit for debate based on past conduct at debates, it would be reasonable to avoid debating him similar to the reason one avoids debating children or people who have an extensive history of interrupting debates. However once you start the debate with him, pointing this out is still ad hominem.

I mean if you don't understand how self-evident it is that we live in a systematically racist society then that's on you mate.

You're making a false claim and then repeatedly refusing to substantiate it, that's not on me.

And by saying that "ideologues whose only agenda is to weaponise your brand and business to further a radical cause" is a valid concern is a political opinion

It's anti-political specifically. At least allegedly. I don't believe that either for the record, but we'll see how they actually act.

Wait, that's legal? I don't know what it is like in the United States but I can count the number of times I've been asked for my race on an application on my left hand, and every time it was optional.

Yes, it is legal to ask for race. In the US I've never seen an application that didn't have it. You can choose not to disclose it, not sure if that would have any impact on hiring. It shouldn't, in principle.

Lets say that I got fired from a workplace for saying an opinion that was extremely unpopular in right-wing circles (a dissenting opinion, if you will) and I applied on this website. How far do you think I would get?

Right now? Probably pretty far if you were otherwise merited and not putting that opinion in the application or something. It would be poor form/strategy for them to engage in blatant hypocrisy immediately.

Long term? We'll see. If human tendencies are anything to go by I'd estimate it will probably wind up being conservative-biased, unless/until pendulum swings back and it's the far right pushing bullcrap on people again.

Ah, well if they did that then that was rather silly of them.

Yeah. It was a major screwup from their legal team in the first place and retrospective alterations tend not to be favorable in court.

I mean yes and no. As I said earlier Twitter nukes pro-ISIS accounts from orbit with automatic deletion. It treats Far-Right political ideologies from the west with feather gloves comparatively.

Openly advocating violence violates things expressly listed as unpermitted in ToS though, so that's not an apples to apples comparison.

The problem remains that companies promise something they don't deliver and/or discriminate/treat their rules differently for different people.

Well that's exactly the thing. In the cases that these "woke" pieces of media are terrible its usually terrible not because they have lesbians in it or something, but because it was written by hacks. But many in the "anti-woke mob" are utterly convinced that if there weren't [insert non-cishet and/or non-white woman here] characters in the piece of media then the piece of media would magically be brilliant.

We agree that they wouldn't be. I'd expect far right hack jobs to perform similarly badly, though right now Hollywood is mostly controlled by the left so it doesn't happen.

As others have noted, AOC has supported plans to break up Facebook et al, so I really doubt that she is funded by them.

Indeed, I saw Alphabet inc, Apple, and Microsoft, not Facebook.