The default state of online existence is as an anonymous marketplace of ideas, a free market of memetic competition. The digital think tank of a sufficiently pseudonymous network, one that maintains devil’s advocacy as a constant, consistently achieves accurate analysis by disassociating content from context: to engage with an idea properly you must separate it from the proponent, allowing it to stand on its own.
Biological identity is not only irrelevant but antithetical to this platform. A de-anonymized forum cannot function as a true marketplace of ideas. Entryists will come knocking at the door with the woke trojan horse, injecting identity politics to correct some unseen discrimination, but there is no race or class online, only freedoms & enroachments on them.
It is further clear that identity politics advances exclusion, not inclusion, by introducing previously nonexistent vectors to both positively & negatively discriminate otherwise anonymous individuals on. The ultimate inclusivity is found in elimination of identity, which is the default state of pseudonymous online communication:
- There is no discrimination without identity.
- Anonymity has no identity.
- Crypto is anonymous.
- Therefore, there is no discrimination in crypto.
The reintroduction of biological identity and associated politics is counterproductive to the goal of eliminating discrimination. I have never heard and cannot think of any good faith rationale for idpol proclaimants to reintroduce identity (and the discrimination that follows) into anonymous spaces where it has already transcended, but it is obvious how the follow-up payload of self-doxxing, censorship and entryist levering opportunities is in the interest of the state.
It is also my belief that advancing technology (VR, AR and AI-based deepfaking) will quite quickly develop to the point of a comprehensive infrastructure for an actively anonymized and reconfigured presentation of identity. “Catfishing” will be the new norm with being able to plausibly change whole gender presentation its ultimate test, and it will soon be as easy as changing out a profile picture: powerful AI filters over 2D selfies are already effective at transmogrifying the face even in real-time video, and 3D virtual reality avatars fully obscure the physical form for digital socialization in the metaverse, while primitive voicechangers are being augmented by increasingly accessible AI which will eventually fully give way to realtime Speech-to-Text-to-Speech for full anonymization and post-gender plausibility, and looking further into the future, we can speculate on an ever-present augmented reality overlay of custom avatars obscuring human forms entirely.
Whether you believe this is good or bad is not relevant, it’s just the fate we follow, and the only thing you can do is develop the conceptual tools to engage it consciously—but it certainly will further complicate the entryist’s attempts to reintroduce material identity into the discourse. It is interested, however, that they rally against these new technologies, one would assume it should be as eagerly anticipated by anyone concerned with the discrimination of oppressed identities as much as it is being readily adopted by the youth of those categories, but then again, the same is true of anonymity. I suspect the dishonesty in their criticism.
Regardless, to many reading this, as NEETs, we are already post-identity online, we have already transcended it, we already live this. Our virtual existences are as digital cyborgs: amorphous, performative, unmoored by any bioreality. And knowing the teleology of technology, we know we are simply the vanguard: we know the overton window of normalcy will continue to rapidly progress towards a universal digital experience, the Real’s full subsumption into the Wired, until it’s reality for all of you too. So be it.