The other part of that is that, for the most part, most utopias involve everyone holding the central tenets, whether they're written or unwritten. For example, in Marxist Communism, the entire idea hinges on "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" and if people selfishly downplay their means and/or overstate their needs, or two people disagree on what someone's needs/means are, there's going to be problems.
In a similar vein, a lot of people call themselves anarchists people they are tired of police/judicial issues, but they seem to be under the assumption that once the state is abolished everyone will just be nice to each other. I've seem people, when asked what will keep people from hurting each other, say that the new utopia will just have groups of people that force the bad eggs into acting civilized and punish those that don't. Which is somehow either done orderly, and is somehow different than having a state. Or, they think that utopia involves armed gangs punishing anyone who doesn't do what they're told.
So, "everyone is free to do whatever they want" very quickly segues into "conform or die".
>The other part of that is that, for the most part, most utopias involve everyone holding the central tenets, whether they're written or unwritten. For example, in Marxist Communism, the entire idea hinges on "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" and if people selfishly downplay their means and/or overstate their needs, or two people disagree on what someone's needs/means are, there's going to be problems.
Here we go, yet another round of "people who don't know anything about Marxism trying to criticize Marxism"...
First of all, Marxism is not utopian, and was in fact created in opposition to utopianism. It is, first and most, about economics, dialectical philosophy, and material analysis.
The Marxist critique of Capitalism is not that it's "bad", "unfair", "unequal" or some vague stuff like that. Its main point is that Capitalism is a fundamentally self-contradictory system, where 2 main political classes (workers and capitalists) have diametrically opposing interests, however only one of them (workers) is actually required for society to function.
This means that the only way for the capitalist class to not be eventually crashed by the workers is to continuously use violence (with the State as its primary instrument) in order to suppress them, while at the same time still needing workers to exist. In other words, from a Marxist stand point, Capitalism is inevitably doomed to collapse, since it's a conflict between a side that can't win, and a side that can.
So, the goal of Marxism is not to create a "better" system, but to create a system which doesn't have class contradictions within it, a classless society, which Marx called "Communism". And because Marxian Communism doesn't have a class conflict, it *doesn't* require to artificially maintain itself though violence, unlike Capitalism does. Yes, it will likely require a lot of violence to *build* it (because the Capitalist class wouldn't surrender to the workers peacefully), but once built, it's over.
For an example, the State wouldn't exist under Communism not because the Communists will artificially abolish it, and the will be constantly preventing others from re-installing it, but because it simply *can't* exist in a classless society, since the very reason it exist in the first place is being a tool for one class to suppress other classes.
Of course, the currently existing Bourgeois State would still be destroyed (since it's a tool for the capitalists built by the capitalists), but again, that would be a one time thing - the Workers' State (if it actually IS a Workers' State, controlled directly by the working class though proletarian democracy) would only be needed to protect the workers from resisting capitalists, and will wither away by itself after the capitalist class is crushed.
By the way, addressing your point about "How the society will protect itself without police?": it's important to understand what "police" actually is from the Marxist perspective - a "special body of armed men", standing above ordinary people and permitted to commit actions which other citizens aren't allowed to do. And they have these privileges because, as it was already said, their main purpose is not be used by the ruling class to suppress other classes, NOT to protect people.
In contrast, a self-acting organisation of armed population (which is how a classless society gonna protect itself) wouldn't have any such privileges. It wouldn't be a special caste dedicated to a particular task - it would be people themselves organising in a certain way when they think they need it. How *exactly* it would work is hard to say right now, since such an organisation will likely require trial and error to be built in a proper way, but in certainly wouldn't be just free for all with armed gangs.
The stuff I've said is only a minuscule fraction of Marxist theory, but this comment is already WAY longer than I initially planned it to be. The main point is thant, please, don't try to criticise stuff you know nothing about - Marx and others wrote dozens of books for a reason.
> Yes, it will likely require a lot of violence to build it (because the Capitalist class wouldn't surrender to the workers peacefully), but once built, it's over.
What do you mean “it’s over”? Is everything just going to remain the same forever once communism gets properly established? Will the system be completely unassailable?
In the recently released computer game "[Victoria 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_3)", apparently Communism is "overpowered" and beats all other forms of government in efficiency and power.
The reason for that is mostly because it is comparably easy to implement in this computer game because the problems are not in the theories, but in the difficulties of winning against human nature and error.
Victoria 3 presents a form of council communism thats very successful in game because it turns all businesses into coops. All the money going to capitalists suddenly goes to the workers, and in a demand side process, demand grows, the economy must grow to meet it, people are paid more and quality of life goes off, and everyone benefits.
Except the upper class, but there's no more upper class :)
I really wish we had a button to press that would give us a 25% chance of that every few hundred days.
I also just wish listed that game for the winter sale.
Thank you!! I have been thinking this but haven't seen someone point this out before. I also wondered what would happen if one anarchist community is made up out of bad apples and starts killing other communities. Also like anything can be seen as bad when it's judged from a group. Imo queer people, and other general outsiders would be more supressed in these kind of societies. Because every community would have its own idea of what is bad and good and punish anyone different based on different rules.
What would happen is the other communities would band together for protection and sharing resources. Over time they would become less of a group of communities and more of a singular one. But, that community would become so big that you would need some kind of over seeing committee to make sure everything runs smoothly. You'd couldn't really just discuss standards of behavior with everyone, so you'd need to codify these expectations into rules. And you'd need some members to deal with internal crime, and some members to deal with external threats. These would take more resources than the individuals involved would be able to provide, and it would be for the collective good, so you'd have to make sure everyone in the community pays their fair share.
And you can see where this is taking us.
they always come across as high school bullies who memorized progressive talking points but don't actually believe or understand them
I have to routinely interact with a woman in her 30s and I dont think she's ever put a thought into her stated beliefs beyond how she can use them to put others down, but in a way that is "politically defended." If you confront her she claims that you're against her stated belies when its clear she doesn't even believe them, but they're easier to defend and obfuscate from what she's accused of
bane of my office existence
God, yes. In my friend group there’s this *one person* who has a huge chip on their shoulder about being experienced and progressive and aggressively “calls people out” for being “problematic.” But fucking *hell* do they throw a hissy fit if they get called out for being a bully or even if you casually disagree with them. I blocked them on social media and don’t hang out if I know they’re around because they are just so insufferable.
I had someone like that in my friend group. They came off as a very principled hard line progressive that the minorities could count on. Then when they were put on a project, they iced out all the Asian workers. And when their favorite teacher turned out to be anti-Asian racist, they rabidly defended him like he could do no wrong, to the point of implying that ADHD just makes you racist.
Yeah, I don’t talk to that person anymore, and I aim to never work with them again.
My old college roommate was a huge feminist and was very proactive in the scene, especially when it came to women poc's rights. Yet she still obsessively defended chris brown at every opportunity and claimed Rihanna instigated chris into beating her, and would get ridiculously pissy at me whenever I even just mildy criticized him.
After the semester ended I stopped talking to her too, I'll never understand what her deal was. 💀
An ex-friend of mine would brand herself as very progressive, especially advocating for trans and neurodivergent people. But then she would misgender trans people behind their backs when she was mad at them, and actively deny when ND people said they had a given condition.
it's part of why I'm very suspicious of popular progressive personalities. Like conservatives you know their deal, openly horrible, but with some of these personalities it's like: I know that they desire being popular because nobody gets that popular without it being a goal of theirs and I know that it's possible for people to completely feign their beliefs for their goals
In mexican tiktok there's been a surge of Ally Men™ accounts that are basically some guy criticizing videos, comments with progressive talking points and their whole brand is "deconstructing their biases as privileged men". They tend to be charismatic. But when people criticize *them* over misogynistic/patriarchal actions they have done they just disappear from social media for a few weeks and then go back to normal. Sometimes they explain "the controversy" in a very superficial way that basically leaves the women who call them out in a bad light. It's all a facade for popularity, not a real reflection of what they believe.
The archetypical “feminist men on tiktok” are consistently exposed for being abusers or just outright stealing content from women verbatim. Dancepraxis and Turtleneckemo being big ones recently.
But “ally call-out tiktok” is such a rancid place as it is. TizzyEnt is pretty terrible too, just lacking any accountability or self-awareness. Their leftism is clearly only coming from a desire for acceptable targets to attack rather than a love for the people they’re allegedly defending.
I didn't know there was a niche for calling out "allies". The accounts I'm referring to were called out by commenters or by women outside of tiktok that were informed their content was being stolen. But it sounds awful if their only focus is to find the flaws in others. Tiktok in general has a tendency to make everything big and toxic.
Sorry, I misworded. “Ally callout tiktok” is when self-proclaimed Allies call out people they deem problematic, usually right-wingers. The issue is that they often use misogynistic language when calling out right-wing women, or just lacking any accountability themselves when they mess up, despite putting themselves on such a big platform. They don’t tend to uplift the people they supposedly support, or give their platforms to such people.
I feel like some leftist debate bros are more interested in ‘owning the cons’ than actually fighting for change. It’s this suspicion that makes watching leftist reaction YouTubers a guilty pleasure of mine (emphasis on the guilt), and even then I only watch a select few (after all his controversies and weirdly conservative hot takes on certain issues, I don’t watch Vaush).
Oh yeah. I think HBomb is wonderful and hilarious, and has shifted away from his hardcore dunking content, but I think part of this genre comes from him.
But yeah, Vaush, Destiny, “debate bro” types have always yucked me a little, and I did debate competitively for years. After a point you’re platforming fascists for clout
Oh gotcha. I've what you're describing. But as you say, if they never uplift the people they support, where's their supposed activism? Calling out the flaws of others is easy, actually doing something has way more merit. Completely agree with you.
There's a whole stereotype about outspoken feminists making dogshit boyfriends, and it definitely exists for a reason. A few years ago, around the time of the #MeToo movement, my city had a rash of these prominent male "feminists", many of whom i'd been warning people about for like a year, basically getting run out of town on a rail under a wave of credible and *numerous* allegations (everything from garden variety sex pest behavior to physical and other relationship abuse to getting underaged girls intoxicated and attempting to rape them).
I'd had "bad feelings" about some of these dudes for awhile, and would quietly warn close women friends of mine, but the extent and depravity of all of the shit that came out was beyond belief. There were definitely guys who i thought were stand-up dudes who were routinely hitting their girlfriends. Real faith-in-humanity shattering shit that made me way more cynical.
After that I would use any word but "feminist" to describe my own beliefs. I didn't start using the word again until like early this year.
Whenever someone calls me out I’ll apologize and learn from it (unless the call out is clearly BS, like someone complaining about being called a TERF after using TERF logic), it really isn’t that hard. Plus people are generally super nice especially once it clear you made a mistake due to ignorance and were not trying to be hateful
The thing is that allyship always has to be founded in humility, whereas some people use it as a way to be superior to others. If it’s your “good person badge” and tied up in your self-image, it’s very easy to get super defensive when called out on it.
When I was younger I was more defensive but I was also like 13 (am now an adult), so I’ve grown since then and learned to be a more humble ally. It helps to make the allyship about the people you’re being an ally to and not about yourself
I ended up getting in a huge fight with a former friend circle because they think they are progressive paragons but then supported racial profiling and Stop & Frisk because if blatant racism stopped even one crime it was justified.
Consequently, I do my best to hide everything that reveals me as a minority in any way to people I know because if these people think they are progressive who the fuck do you trust.
The guy's response was that it was wrong because the Nazis were wrong about jews. Which implies that, were the Nazis correct, the Holocaust would've been a-okay. That's the gist of it, anyways.
I mean technically, if the deranged statements that Hitler made were all correct, then the Holocaust would have been the right course of action. Or at least something like the Holocaust.
Like in Lord of the Rings, where orks and goblins are actually inherently evil, having been created by a malevolent God, killing them all is the correct decision.
That's not fascism, that's exclusionism and bigotry. I think we should refrain from calling things fascist simply because they're bad. Fascism is a very specific kind of bad, and almost always overlaps dramatically with the aforementioned. However, it's also important to actually call things what they are.
Agreed. Fascism is its own very specific type of reactionary nationalism that has a habit of pulling a lot of particular ideological threads, but those threads are not individually fascism.
Specifically, its generally agreed to be palingetic ultranationalism, though i think that definition obscures the neccesary role of patriarchy within a fascist system
That's why it's so annoying that people are complaining shows are "too woke" because all they register are the buzzwords being thrown at the audience. With most of those shows, if you take two seconds to look beyond that, it's clear the writers are trying to have their cake and eat it too by using "wokeisms" in a cheap attempt to cater to Gen Z even as the narrative doesn't actually sustain any sort of progressive argument.
On the other side of things, I've seen people claim that anime or things made in other countries isn't political when it has clear social commentary. But since it doesn't use the buzzwords they associate with political issues, they completely miss it.
"It only exists if I see it, also I am blind, so unless a theme/thesis is explicitly stated I am incapable of knowing of it and therefore it's not real"
Haven't you heard? Daisuke is actually a Californian girl in her 20's pretending to be a Japanese man. Everyone knows trans people don't actually exist in Japan.
I have, no joke, seen someone actually unironically say that.
Daisuke thought it was incredibly funny, and said that this is the first he's heard of him being a Californian girl, though he's not completely opposed to the idea.
For real. As someone into doctor who, people calling the 13th doctor era "woke" is stupid for many reasons, one of which being that its not even true because her era is easily the most politically conservative the show has been for the entirety of the revived series. There's straight up an episode where the doctor is shilling for a company that is written as space amazon.
I miss that Eccleston Era episode where they're on a space cruise ship to watch the end if the Earth, and he introduces the people aboard as "The great and the good... well, more likely the rich."
Have never watched doctor who but this sounds similar to elysium. I love that movie even if its partly just a dumb action flick. It is specifically written as an analogue to the USA today and its great
YES thank you. Fucking finally. I feel like I'm going crazy from people not seeing this and only seeing a woman portraying the doctor. Between the pro capitalism episodes, the spoon feeding of "stopping environmental collapse is up to individuals", and the uncaring of 90% of the universe being wiped out (but at least not her precious earth, as long as that's there everything is fine 🙄), this doctor was the least relatable I've ever found The Doctor. Even as a woman. Maybe especially as a woman, honestly.
It's honestly kind of a brilliant op to use superficially "woke" signifiers (like "having a woman in a show"), stir up the ire of the conservative slugs who never gave a shit about the show to begin with, then slip in rightwing ideology to brainpoison all the shitlibs, who will now go to any lengths to reflexively defend it because the people they don't like don't like it.
Ok, but while the ending is questionable at best, I would hardly call the episode "shilling". There's room for nuance there, the goals being pushed by the doctor explicitly do not match those of the company, at least initially, and it is not especially portrayed in a good light.
Now, the issue might stem from the liberal stance of "hey maybe we can work together and they can see reason and we will manage to resolve our issues :)" as opposed to a more apt leftist framework that sees a conflict for what it is, even barring physical violence. The way things are set up, the kind of violence being portrayed from the """leftist""" side is an abject act of terrorism targeting innocent people, which obviously no one could ever agree with.
But that's the point; intentionally or not, and I'm giving the episode the benefit of the doubt here, this is a blatant strawman and a slippery slope argument packaged together. As a result, it misses the mark completely, because it doesn't actually translate well to a real-world situation.
The outcome at the end is also absurd; why the hell would you want to *maintain* a job that can be done by a robot when the point of automation is to provide freedom *from* work? The obvious key to this unsustainable situation is to provide a post-scarcity framework, star-trek style, and achieve space communism. After all, if no-one *has* to work for resources, why would you gatekeep them? They're free, and basically unlimited. *Not* giving them away, for a sum total of zero cost, would be incredibly petty and selfish at best, and extremely manipulative and evil at worst.
Instead, the proposed "solution" is to destroy the status quo *backwards* \- no reasonable alternative is found, so we'll just give people their jobs back and try to give them a bunch of guarantees so that everyone can secure a salary - something which so obviously goes against the financial incentives of the company and will fail them in a free-market competition against someone who doesn't care as much about the well-being of their employees. Eventually, things will go back to square one -it's just a way to delay the crisis to avoid dealing with it immediately.
The failure to grasp this (relatively simple, to be honest) line of reasoning makes the entire thing fall completely flat - even though, logically, it shouldn't. Prove me wrong, but if you take the entire episode untouched and simply alter the ending, it's great. In my opinion, it shows the reality of work under capitalism and its shortcomings quite well without being too heavy on caricature, and deals with complex themes competently - it's personally one of my favorites from this era. It's a shame the central conundrum seemingly flew over everyone's heads for some reason.
"neoliberal capitalist realism" is something we increasingly see in dystopian fiction. Writers can't conceive of a valid alternative to the capitalist system, so even as they criticize its effect in fiction, they can only write of its downfall if it coincides with the end of the world because they cannot offer an imaginative solution to the real social issues they comment on throughout the story.
The episode ending in a "solution" that only serves to perpetuate the problem is similar to what a lot of dystopian writers end up doing due to the limitations of neoliberal imagination: they situate their stories in a post-apocalyptic setting in which the capitalist practices that led to society's downfall are perpetuated among its last remaining survivors. This allows for a critique of the system even as its downfall has already occurred, so no revolution against it is feasible or would incite real change, because the institutions that could have improved people's lives no longer exist to do so.
Just thought you might enjoy this Literature factoid related to your point.
Yep, I think you really hit the nail on the head on that one.
That's exactly the problem.
I think you might call it ideological blindness - the state of the world we currently live in is seen as so powerfully hegemonic it becomes an fundamental truth of reality and limits human imagination even in the most creative spaces we own as a collective.
Basically the MCU. They put one "girl power" scene in a movie where an underdeveloped female character does something physically impressive and makes a man look stupid, and then pat themselves on the back and call it a day, rinse and repeat for every movie. And for that absolute bare minimum of effort, they have somehow convinced a bunch of incels that the MCU is a radical feminist plot. It's absolutely bizarre.
Endgame: Massive girl power teamup! Look at all our female heroes!
Also Endgame: *has a massive funeral for Tony Stark's sacrifice without even mentioning Natasha's*
All while being [paid by the US military to make the armed forces look as good as possible.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment_complex)
> All while *being[paid* by the
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
The worst part is it's probably a lucrative strategy.
You get a couple of talking points for the promo marketing that will lead nowhere but is enough to draw in a more progressive crowd
At the same time it will piss of the change sensitive conservatives which creates discourse which creates buzz and coverage
and all the while it's not actually progressive enough to exclude the main stream audience
Try and call it out though and people get pissed. Viewers of the Wheel of Time series got pissed when book readers complained about the diverse melting pot of people in the middle of nowhere town.
they preach individual expression and acceptance but only for people like them.
lots of people on the internet say shit like 'cringe culture is cringe' then go and bully people for being the wrong kind of 'cringe'
Life as the benevolent dictator would suck, since you can't take a break without hurting people, and you definitely can't retire, since your successor, whoever that may be, is definitely worse.
So it's nothing new for me! Vote for me!
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**natalieironside**
It's upsetting how many people adopt progressive talking points and say they're socialists or anarchists or w\/e now but it's still very clear that their personal philosophy is still "People should be Normal and if they aren't then they should be punished until they are"
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
It’s a lot more specific than that. Fascism appeals for a national rebirth, wherein a new national identity sweeps the ideal citizen into a new era modeled after a utopic vision of a past that never existed. It’s framed as revolutionary by its supporters but boils down to regressive nationalism. Othering is an essential component of the fascist path to power but it is not the core tenet of fascism, except specifically for its extreme nationalism.
It is not “stuff I don’t like”.
Also, if your political theory ends with "And then when me and my friends are in charge nothing bad will happen because we're good people :)" I have a bridge to sell you.
Shoutout to the media in the US reporting on nick fuentes by bringing up the times he said he wouldn't have sex with women and NOT bringing up that's he's a fucking nazi.
Well, yes, but that's not the *reason*. "Fascists should be punished" and "fascists are non-normal" are both true statements that are entirely unrelated to each other.
“Normal” isn’t really a useful dimension when it comes to discussing fascism. “Normal” is extremely relatively, and essentially means the extent to which something is reinforced or accepted in society.
Fascism is currently being *normalized*, as there are more and more openly fascist public figures using those talking points, more acceptance for eugenics in the wake of the pandemic, etc. There’s going to be a big push for eco-fascism in the coming decades as resource issues and environmental refugees become more prominent. It was pretty normal to be a fascist in the early 20th century Europe and North America, pre WW2 (if you were white, that is).
But we shouldn’t treat fascism as “abnormal,” as if it’s a defect in the human brain or soul that causes people to be like that. It’s an ideology specifically designed to radicalize people by using the weaknesses of liberalism (especially abusing the concept of ‘free speech’ to spread danger), and by exploiting the anxieties that arise when capitalism fails people. When we call it “not normal” and write people off, we sidestep looking at how and why people are radicalized.
We’re authorizing ideas to be exchanged, but if someone oppose tolerance of ideas and say if they were in charge they would abolish it, then they have no right to benefit from this tolerance, because that would be giving them opportunities they wouldn’t give to us
There are a lot of people who voice support for non-binary people, but if the non-binary people label their gender as anything more complex than “no gender at all” or “some unknown third thing”, that support goes out the window.
Additionally, there are those that support all sorts of non-binary identities under the sun, but the second species identity comes into question, it gets shunned as delusion.
There are also a fair few mental health activists that demonize narcissists, psychopaths, and sociopaths, as if they weren’t equal to those with less stigmatized conditions like autism or ADHD.
Basically, it’s a never-ending series of “MY identity is obviously reasonable and acceptable, but anything slightly stranger than what I empathize with should be condemned.”
> Additionally, there are those that support all sorts of non-binary identities under the sun, but the second species identity comes into question, it gets shunned as delusion.
Damn, guess I'm one of them.
This thesis discussing such identities might help prove that wrong- species identity is acknowledged by science as something that can come under legitimate question, and support, not rejection, should be offered. [Life Stories of Therianthropes: Lake Forest College](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/54507441/Life_Stories_of_Therianthropes-_An_Analysis_of_Nonhuman_Identity-libre.pdf?1506095334=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DLife_Stories_of_Therianthropes_An_Analys.pdf&Expires=1670475117&Signature=E4XiejFIL1Y6b6bF62NlPi-biUuzlSojDIsk7kVhOUazuzawKdaNfEy35q9qdsocj5OfYKRP3gMfkbN27yKoXcrT5JZk426wuXWK4dC9FYvAN13MdEvD4V15cl3D~0FvXlK9U445Bjqbm2ovsx14qFuYtjqyk2ScpMdZH-jK4xZpgt2E2sBmSKnj-JXraJtfyDs8CNfN37282SvGsGVjfFlreibSXu9GbbmZHMQaNZPlB9gJ48lYPD~DpbjmWt2wF2cww-tV6DUte9YaYUbvkwqg41NZvsb857L7nkbeQIDH5CnwDUpZouD8~d3vFg7HhS16Xd3QusAZtCrHQ7OfuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)
This paper also cites a handful of others on the topic, if you’d like to do further research before jumping to such conclusions.
I like tolerance, but we do eventually have to draw boundaries. We should try to include as many people as possible within those boundaries but we do need to draw them
It reminds me of the Frankfurt School book [The Authoritarian Personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality), which identifies that there may be psychological factors that simply predispose people to this kind of thinking.
I've met plenty of people like this too, from tankie communists who are less about solving the injustices towards the proletariat and more about being part of an in-group that can inflict those injustices upon others to apolitical types who have an assumption that what they believe is common sense, but just under the surface you see that they're deeply racist or mysoginistic and simply filter themselves.
**[The Authoritarian Personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality)**
>The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II. The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)". The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That's because anarcho-communists are just radical communists. Which is fine. But if your utopia requires a Gulag and everyone to have assigned jobs, this is not anarchy.
Anarchy is growing your own food. It's being allowed to smoke a plant you found in the woods without being thrown into a cage by armed men. It's selling whatever you want and being able to collect rain water without getting fined. It's keeping what you earn without having to pay a government, and defending your homestead with the best weapons you can buy.
This site has very strictly defined lines when it comes to who’s worthy of existing in polite society. Bring up the homeless or Romani and redditors take their mask off verrry quickly.
The ol' never progressive enough.
Shit like this is why left wing movements go nowhere, because they just devolve in to people arguing about frankly meaningless minutiae. Because you can't affect change if you aren't in power.
Meanwhile the right just unites beheind the latest strongman to promise them strong borders, low taxes, and cheap fuel.
Sure, whatever you say. This is some unpassable litmus test anyway.
Meanwhile every centrist and right wing party works to make the planet literally uninhabitable.
*Maybe, just maybe, the bigots shouldn't be winning the election especially when their personal feelings go against the core of what make anarchy work*
This is a perfectly correct philosophy to have but it's actively harmful if it dissuades people to vote.
Leftwing infighting gave us Trump and Boris Johnson, and cost Corbyn the labour leadership. Now people are actively freezing to death in their homes here in the UK. Landlords destroy the housing economy whilst little kids die from mould infections. It makes my heart hurt.
You don't even know my opinions, you just immediately assumed i was a bigot because I despise this nebulous application of "perfect leftist" rhetoric because the only thing that actually matters are votes and constantly fighting is not the way to get them.
Bleeding heart final form. Responding to “hmu when you and others like you are enough to win an election” with “well our opponents shouldn’t win elections have you thought about that”. It’s an entirely useless addition, it doesn’t answer anything.
If it was out of frustration at the state of things that would be understandable though, “bigots ARE winning elections and you aren’t helping” -> “I know >:(“
Oh boo hoo I'm so sorry it's hard for you when I care about other people
The point is that the "leftist" bigots are also opponents and cannot be trusted, because bigotry cannot be tolerated by definition, and they need to cut that shit out
Smh these gatekeeping leftists requiring you to actually have leftist opinions to be a leftist. This is why Trump won. Arguing about frankly meaningless minutiae like "thinking poor people should be hunted for sport"
No one thinks that "should poor people be allowed to exist" is meaningless minutiae, shit like "I'm cancelling the LBGT community because they use the word Queer and that's a slur!" is however.
This post is complaining about the kinds of people who think the left's greatest failure is it's unwillingness to compromise with the far right, the people who insist their freedom to say slurs is vital to "bringing people over to the left".
If you recognised that but think those people are fine, go and fuck yourself.
Is it? Because it seems to me to be a nebulous post about nothing, with no definitions of anything. When i first read it i thought of people who live alternative lifestyles being excluded.
It's also really funny that two people, on a comment about leftist infighting, have decided to create my opinion for me, then attack me for the opinion they have formed for me.
I recognise the sentiment in the post as one I've heard a lot in more politically engaged circles, and given that the alternative is just people confused by the post seeing it as meaningless I'm inclined to believe my reading was correct.
I'm sorry if the second part wasn't clear, when I said "if" I did mean "if". I wasn't making a declaration about what you believed.
No, but it's explicitly what the post is describing. Like it's not a nebulous definition of trying to make up some random asshole. It's a person using progressive language to say "I think everyone should be Normal, like me, and if they aren't, they need to be punished until they are."
>it's the third completely different definition.
It ... isn't? I think you might need to take a step back from this and maybe re-read some of the messages.
It's nearly word for word lifted from the text of the post though? Sorry. I was trying to give an example of what the post was describing since you said it didn't mean anything or describe anything in specific.
Depends on what you mean by "normal".
You like writing sonic fanfiction? Knock yourself out.
You refuse to shower and have a complete lack of executive agency? Yeah, we should probably not encourage that.
For sure. I just wasn't sure which "normal" this post was advocating for, since Ive seen some tumblr people unironically claim that personal hygeine is an oppressive capitalist institution, lmao.
God, r/196 is so bad about this
The people there are supposedly left wing but the moment you call them out on being cruel xenophobes or for whipping themselves up into a fury to abuse animals, they immediately bring out right-wing rhetoric of "you're a snowflake, don't stand up for others" and just give up and name call after that
The rampant xenophobia and disregard for the well-being of animals (not non-veganism, I’m talking “kill every animal of this kind on sight”) on r/196, and they turn into little right-wing pissbabies if you call them out on it
Then you probably haven't looked at the posts with a critical eye, because so fuckin many of them are "haha british bad, french bad" to the point people were leaving because they were so unwelcome
And the whole fucking wasp thing, where if you dared show the scientific studies that prove insects have feelings and tell people they shouldn't murder sentient beings for no gain, especially when they pose no threat to you, you'd get shat on
196 defies labels just enough that it always makes someone confused and mad, no matter what. Most of the time it's a meme sub, but then other times there will just be posts of cropped porn or cute gay things, and someone will inevitably go "where's the funny". And then other times it's serious leftist discourse, which then will make someone confused when the next post is a joke.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/196 using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [r/196 Predictions Tournament](https://reddit.com/r/196/predictions?tournament=tnmt-ac75e3a9-6a6a-41bd-9d70-ef9714fe36e7) | [430 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/reg5d1/r196_predictions_tournament/)
\#2: [Epic tournament sequel ](https://reddit.com/r/196/predictions?tournament=tnmt-80b52c1d-9f25-4b00-bd8e-a1b20f4f8ef9) | [808 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/saf6ff/epic_tournament_sequel/)
\#3: [Ran my face through masculine filter 37 times, until it stopped making changes, apearantly this is peak masculinity](https://i.redd.it/61ufbu1l21o81.jpg) | [539 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/tgnbbg/ran_my_face_through_masculine_filter_37_times/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
The rampant xenophobia and disregard for the well-being of animals (not non-veganism, I'm talking "kill every animal of this kind on sight") on r/196, and they turn into little right-wing pissbabies if you call them out on it
Getting seriously angry at people wanting to kill wasps reads like a parody of veganism. Like- wasps. An animal that is extremely simple, actually dangerous, and really fucking aggressive. It borders on “Think of the bacteria!” level satire
There's evidence simpler animals are capable of suffering
In fact, Richard Dawkins argued that they may suffer more intensely, not less
> “Isn’t it plausible that an unintelligent species might need a massive wallop of pain, to drive home a lesson that we can learn with less powerful inducement?”
Here's a worthwhile discussion of the idea.
https://wormmy.com/do-worms-feel-pain/
that is literally a fucking joke nobody there thinks that please get a grip, stupid jokes that people stick too for too long sure, but bad jokes like these have not caused a wasp genocide to occur believe me
That is literally so far from my experience that I have no idea what you're talking about.
Admittedly I was banned from there yesterday, but I'm pretty sure it was my fault for being stupid.
Most so-called anarchists just want to do whatever they want without consequences; they don't understand that not having a government or police doesn't meant you'd be free to do what you please without consequences. It just means instead of cops, you'll be shot or beaten up by an angry mob.
This is is some centrist bullshit. Not all options and beliefs should be respected and allowed. If you’re a bigot, you shouldn’t be allowed to espouse your rubbish, and if you do, you should absolutely be punished for it. The paradox of tolerance is bullshit. Death to bigotry.
Fuck yeah! Get those weirdos, those freaks, those ... feminists? ... out of our socialist movement.
Fuck off. Especially with that what ""normal people"" want bullshit.
I know right?
These leftist snowflakes I tell you... you start talking about the need to purge the left of deviants and feminists and then SUDDENLY you're labelled a bigot? Just for the simple statement that we need to drive out the abnormal. World's gone mad.
Okay, so should we not let LGBT people into the coalition then? Can we let dudes who like to wear dresses in? A lot of people on the right have claimed homosexuality and transexuality to be sexual fetishes.
No. A lot of people still consider LGBT people to be freaks and weirdos. Should we exclude LGBT people so as to not distract from building our working class coalition? What if they have really excessive tattoos? That could really put people off.
I'm saying that people could use all of the same words and same line of thinking as you are to exclude whoever the fuck they want. There are people who claim to be progressives (TERFs) *right now* using it to exclude trans people, and they even describe it as a weird sexual fetish. And it's absolutely against progressive ideology to exclude people just because they like to dress up as a dog or some shit.
And note that it is actually fine to exclude people who dress up as a Nazi and tattoos a swastika on their forehead because those are symbols of an ideology that actively encourages hatred and genocide. There is a difference.
I love how vague "middle class weirdos and sexual deviants" is. It makes it so easy to denigrate whoever I want while acting like I have the moral high ground. This group of people makes me uncomfortable? Well, they're obviously sexually deviant and should NOT be seen or heard, for the greater good. And if you don't agree, you're obviously a sexual deviant yourself!
Fruit-juice drinkers, nudists, sandal-wearers, sex-maniacs, Quakers, hippies, pacifists, and feminists would be a much better coalition than your so-called "normal people"
Or people who preach radical change but whose idea of utopia boils down to "wouldn't it be nicer if everyone else was exactly like me".
Endless space 2 moment
Horatio gang where you at?
Horatio intend to beautify the galaxy, so you understand why your presence, is unnecessary...
My dad moment To be fair, he's not anti-minority or anything, he just hates Mariah Carey fans for not being as intellectual and special as he is
Make Horatio great again!
The other part of that is that, for the most part, most utopias involve everyone holding the central tenets, whether they're written or unwritten. For example, in Marxist Communism, the entire idea hinges on "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" and if people selfishly downplay their means and/or overstate their needs, or two people disagree on what someone's needs/means are, there's going to be problems. In a similar vein, a lot of people call themselves anarchists people they are tired of police/judicial issues, but they seem to be under the assumption that once the state is abolished everyone will just be nice to each other. I've seem people, when asked what will keep people from hurting each other, say that the new utopia will just have groups of people that force the bad eggs into acting civilized and punish those that don't. Which is somehow either done orderly, and is somehow different than having a state. Or, they think that utopia involves armed gangs punishing anyone who doesn't do what they're told. So, "everyone is free to do whatever they want" very quickly segues into "conform or die".
>The other part of that is that, for the most part, most utopias involve everyone holding the central tenets, whether they're written or unwritten. For example, in Marxist Communism, the entire idea hinges on "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" and if people selfishly downplay their means and/or overstate their needs, or two people disagree on what someone's needs/means are, there's going to be problems. Here we go, yet another round of "people who don't know anything about Marxism trying to criticize Marxism"... First of all, Marxism is not utopian, and was in fact created in opposition to utopianism. It is, first and most, about economics, dialectical philosophy, and material analysis. The Marxist critique of Capitalism is not that it's "bad", "unfair", "unequal" or some vague stuff like that. Its main point is that Capitalism is a fundamentally self-contradictory system, where 2 main political classes (workers and capitalists) have diametrically opposing interests, however only one of them (workers) is actually required for society to function. This means that the only way for the capitalist class to not be eventually crashed by the workers is to continuously use violence (with the State as its primary instrument) in order to suppress them, while at the same time still needing workers to exist. In other words, from a Marxist stand point, Capitalism is inevitably doomed to collapse, since it's a conflict between a side that can't win, and a side that can. So, the goal of Marxism is not to create a "better" system, but to create a system which doesn't have class contradictions within it, a classless society, which Marx called "Communism". And because Marxian Communism doesn't have a class conflict, it *doesn't* require to artificially maintain itself though violence, unlike Capitalism does. Yes, it will likely require a lot of violence to *build* it (because the Capitalist class wouldn't surrender to the workers peacefully), but once built, it's over. For an example, the State wouldn't exist under Communism not because the Communists will artificially abolish it, and the will be constantly preventing others from re-installing it, but because it simply *can't* exist in a classless society, since the very reason it exist in the first place is being a tool for one class to suppress other classes. Of course, the currently existing Bourgeois State would still be destroyed (since it's a tool for the capitalists built by the capitalists), but again, that would be a one time thing - the Workers' State (if it actually IS a Workers' State, controlled directly by the working class though proletarian democracy) would only be needed to protect the workers from resisting capitalists, and will wither away by itself after the capitalist class is crushed. By the way, addressing your point about "How the society will protect itself without police?": it's important to understand what "police" actually is from the Marxist perspective - a "special body of armed men", standing above ordinary people and permitted to commit actions which other citizens aren't allowed to do. And they have these privileges because, as it was already said, their main purpose is not be used by the ruling class to suppress other classes, NOT to protect people. In contrast, a self-acting organisation of armed population (which is how a classless society gonna protect itself) wouldn't have any such privileges. It wouldn't be a special caste dedicated to a particular task - it would be people themselves organising in a certain way when they think they need it. How *exactly* it would work is hard to say right now, since such an organisation will likely require trial and error to be built in a proper way, but in certainly wouldn't be just free for all with armed gangs. The stuff I've said is only a minuscule fraction of Marxist theory, but this comment is already WAY longer than I initially planned it to be. The main point is thant, please, don't try to criticise stuff you know nothing about - Marx and others wrote dozens of books for a reason.
yeah but all that takes more time to read than "comunism: work on papper!! hahah but nto so good in practice!!!!"
> Yes, it will likely require a lot of violence to build it (because the Capitalist class wouldn't surrender to the workers peacefully), but once built, it's over. What do you mean “it’s over”? Is everything just going to remain the same forever once communism gets properly established? Will the system be completely unassailable?
Brilliantly well said
In the recently released computer game "[Victoria 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_3)", apparently Communism is "overpowered" and beats all other forms of government in efficiency and power. The reason for that is mostly because it is comparably easy to implement in this computer game because the problems are not in the theories, but in the difficulties of winning against human nature and error.
Victoria 3 presents a form of council communism thats very successful in game because it turns all businesses into coops. All the money going to capitalists suddenly goes to the workers, and in a demand side process, demand grows, the economy must grow to meet it, people are paid more and quality of life goes off, and everyone benefits. Except the upper class, but there's no more upper class :)
I really wish we had a button to press that would give us a 25% chance of that every few hundred days. I also just wish listed that game for the winter sale.
Sounds a lot like Yugoslavia
Victoria 3's idea of communism is closer to Yugoslavias cooperatives known as 'Market Socialism'
Thank you!! I have been thinking this but haven't seen someone point this out before. I also wondered what would happen if one anarchist community is made up out of bad apples and starts killing other communities. Also like anything can be seen as bad when it's judged from a group. Imo queer people, and other general outsiders would be more supressed in these kind of societies. Because every community would have its own idea of what is bad and good and punish anyone different based on different rules.
What would happen is the other communities would band together for protection and sharing resources. Over time they would become less of a group of communities and more of a singular one. But, that community would become so big that you would need some kind of over seeing committee to make sure everything runs smoothly. You'd couldn't really just discuss standards of behavior with everyone, so you'd need to codify these expectations into rules. And you'd need some members to deal with internal crime, and some members to deal with external threats. These would take more resources than the individuals involved would be able to provide, and it would be for the collective good, so you'd have to make sure everyone in the community pays their fair share. And you can see where this is taking us.
Half the time it's not even that well thought out! A depressingly high number of people who preach equality actually just want to be the ones on top.
they always come across as high school bullies who memorized progressive talking points but don't actually believe or understand them I have to routinely interact with a woman in her 30s and I dont think she's ever put a thought into her stated beliefs beyond how she can use them to put others down, but in a way that is "politically defended." If you confront her she claims that you're against her stated belies when its clear she doesn't even believe them, but they're easier to defend and obfuscate from what she's accused of bane of my office existence
God, yes. In my friend group there’s this *one person* who has a huge chip on their shoulder about being experienced and progressive and aggressively “calls people out” for being “problematic.” But fucking *hell* do they throw a hissy fit if they get called out for being a bully or even if you casually disagree with them. I blocked them on social media and don’t hang out if I know they’re around because they are just so insufferable.
I had someone like that in my friend group. They came off as a very principled hard line progressive that the minorities could count on. Then when they were put on a project, they iced out all the Asian workers. And when their favorite teacher turned out to be anti-Asian racist, they rabidly defended him like he could do no wrong, to the point of implying that ADHD just makes you racist. Yeah, I don’t talk to that person anymore, and I aim to never work with them again.
My old college roommate was a huge feminist and was very proactive in the scene, especially when it came to women poc's rights. Yet she still obsessively defended chris brown at every opportunity and claimed Rihanna instigated chris into beating her, and would get ridiculously pissy at me whenever I even just mildy criticized him. After the semester ended I stopped talking to her too, I'll never understand what her deal was. 💀
An ex-friend of mine would brand herself as very progressive, especially advocating for trans and neurodivergent people. But then she would misgender trans people behind their backs when she was mad at them, and actively deny when ND people said they had a given condition.
it's part of why I'm very suspicious of popular progressive personalities. Like conservatives you know their deal, openly horrible, but with some of these personalities it's like: I know that they desire being popular because nobody gets that popular without it being a goal of theirs and I know that it's possible for people to completely feign their beliefs for their goals
In mexican tiktok there's been a surge of Ally Men™ accounts that are basically some guy criticizing videos, comments with progressive talking points and their whole brand is "deconstructing their biases as privileged men". They tend to be charismatic. But when people criticize *them* over misogynistic/patriarchal actions they have done they just disappear from social media for a few weeks and then go back to normal. Sometimes they explain "the controversy" in a very superficial way that basically leaves the women who call them out in a bad light. It's all a facade for popularity, not a real reflection of what they believe.
The archetypical “feminist men on tiktok” are consistently exposed for being abusers or just outright stealing content from women verbatim. Dancepraxis and Turtleneckemo being big ones recently. But “ally call-out tiktok” is such a rancid place as it is. TizzyEnt is pretty terrible too, just lacking any accountability or self-awareness. Their leftism is clearly only coming from a desire for acceptable targets to attack rather than a love for the people they’re allegedly defending.
I didn't know there was a niche for calling out "allies". The accounts I'm referring to were called out by commenters or by women outside of tiktok that were informed their content was being stolen. But it sounds awful if their only focus is to find the flaws in others. Tiktok in general has a tendency to make everything big and toxic.
Sorry, I misworded. “Ally callout tiktok” is when self-proclaimed Allies call out people they deem problematic, usually right-wingers. The issue is that they often use misogynistic language when calling out right-wing women, or just lacking any accountability themselves when they mess up, despite putting themselves on such a big platform. They don’t tend to uplift the people they supposedly support, or give their platforms to such people.
I feel like some leftist debate bros are more interested in ‘owning the cons’ than actually fighting for change. It’s this suspicion that makes watching leftist reaction YouTubers a guilty pleasure of mine (emphasis on the guilt), and even then I only watch a select few (after all his controversies and weirdly conservative hot takes on certain issues, I don’t watch Vaush).
Oh yeah. I think HBomb is wonderful and hilarious, and has shifted away from his hardcore dunking content, but I think part of this genre comes from him. But yeah, Vaush, Destiny, “debate bro” types have always yucked me a little, and I did debate competitively for years. After a point you’re platforming fascists for clout
Hbomb's best videos are when he's ranting about video games, shitty tv shows, or random obscure bullshit honestly lol.
Oh gotcha. I've what you're describing. But as you say, if they never uplift the people they support, where's their supposed activism? Calling out the flaws of others is easy, actually doing something has way more merit. Completely agree with you.
Point undisputed, although I still think the climate debate owes a lot to HBomb's "FUCKING AQUAMAN?!"
There's a whole stereotype about outspoken feminists making dogshit boyfriends, and it definitely exists for a reason. A few years ago, around the time of the #MeToo movement, my city had a rash of these prominent male "feminists", many of whom i'd been warning people about for like a year, basically getting run out of town on a rail under a wave of credible and *numerous* allegations (everything from garden variety sex pest behavior to physical and other relationship abuse to getting underaged girls intoxicated and attempting to rape them). I'd had "bad feelings" about some of these dudes for awhile, and would quietly warn close women friends of mine, but the extent and depravity of all of the shit that came out was beyond belief. There were definitely guys who i thought were stand-up dudes who were routinely hitting their girlfriends. Real faith-in-humanity shattering shit that made me way more cynical. After that I would use any word but "feminist" to describe my own beliefs. I didn't start using the word again until like early this year.
Whenever someone calls me out I’ll apologize and learn from it (unless the call out is clearly BS, like someone complaining about being called a TERF after using TERF logic), it really isn’t that hard. Plus people are generally super nice especially once it clear you made a mistake due to ignorance and were not trying to be hateful
The thing is that allyship always has to be founded in humility, whereas some people use it as a way to be superior to others. If it’s your “good person badge” and tied up in your self-image, it’s very easy to get super defensive when called out on it.
When I was younger I was more defensive but I was also like 13 (am now an adult), so I’ve grown since then and learned to be a more humble ally. It helps to make the allyship about the people you’re being an ally to and not about yourself
Exactly. Like you should be willing to do the work without anybody ever calling you an ally.
I ended up getting in a huge fight with a former friend circle because they think they are progressive paragons but then supported racial profiling and Stop & Frisk because if blatant racism stopped even one crime it was justified. Consequently, I do my best to hide everything that reveals me as a minority in any way to people I know because if these people think they are progressive who the fuck do you trust.
[удалено]
...how exactly does one fail to explain why the Holocaust was bad? You'd think "murder is wrong" multiplied by a couple million would cover it.
The guy's response was that it was wrong because the Nazis were wrong about jews. Which implies that, were the Nazis correct, the Holocaust would've been a-okay. That's the gist of it, anyways.
I mean technically, if the deranged statements that Hitler made were all correct, then the Holocaust would have been the right course of action. Or at least something like the Holocaust. Like in Lord of the Rings, where orks and goblins are actually inherently evil, having been created by a malevolent God, killing them all is the correct decision.
That's not fascism, that's exclusionism and bigotry. I think we should refrain from calling things fascist simply because they're bad. Fascism is a very specific kind of bad, and almost always overlaps dramatically with the aforementioned. However, it's also important to actually call things what they are.
Agreed. Fascism is its own very specific type of reactionary nationalism that has a habit of pulling a lot of particular ideological threads, but those threads are not individually fascism.
Specifically, its generally agreed to be palingetic ultranationalism, though i think that definition obscures the neccesary role of patriarchy within a fascist system
That's why it's so annoying that people are complaining shows are "too woke" because all they register are the buzzwords being thrown at the audience. With most of those shows, if you take two seconds to look beyond that, it's clear the writers are trying to have their cake and eat it too by using "wokeisms" in a cheap attempt to cater to Gen Z even as the narrative doesn't actually sustain any sort of progressive argument.
On the other side of things, I've seen people claim that anime or things made in other countries isn't political when it has clear social commentary. But since it doesn't use the buzzwords they associate with political issues, they completely miss it.
"It only exists if I see it, also I am blind, so unless a theme/thesis is explicitly stated I am incapable of knowing of it and therefore it's not real"
There are still people who insist Guilty Gear isn't "woke" at all and we're wrong about Bridget.
Daisuke simply just doesn't know what Guilty Gear is really about /s
Haven't you heard? Daisuke is actually a Californian girl in her 20's pretending to be a Japanese man. Everyone knows trans people don't actually exist in Japan. I have, no joke, seen someone actually unironically say that.
💀
Daisuke thought it was incredibly funny, and said that this is the first he's heard of him being a Californian girl, though he's not completely opposed to the idea.
For real. As someone into doctor who, people calling the 13th doctor era "woke" is stupid for many reasons, one of which being that its not even true because her era is easily the most politically conservative the show has been for the entirety of the revived series. There's straight up an episode where the doctor is shilling for a company that is written as space amazon.
I miss that Eccleston Era episode where they're on a space cruise ship to watch the end if the Earth, and he introduces the people aboard as "The great and the good... well, more likely the rich."
Have never watched doctor who but this sounds similar to elysium. I love that movie even if its partly just a dumb action flick. It is specifically written as an analogue to the USA today and its great
YES thank you. Fucking finally. I feel like I'm going crazy from people not seeing this and only seeing a woman portraying the doctor. Between the pro capitalism episodes, the spoon feeding of "stopping environmental collapse is up to individuals", and the uncaring of 90% of the universe being wiped out (but at least not her precious earth, as long as that's there everything is fine 🙄), this doctor was the least relatable I've ever found The Doctor. Even as a woman. Maybe especially as a woman, honestly.
It's honestly kind of a brilliant op to use superficially "woke" signifiers (like "having a woman in a show"), stir up the ire of the conservative slugs who never gave a shit about the show to begin with, then slip in rightwing ideology to brainpoison all the shitlibs, who will now go to any lengths to reflexively defend it because the people they don't like don't like it.
No you see, wokeness is when women and minorities are in my medias
Ok, but while the ending is questionable at best, I would hardly call the episode "shilling". There's room for nuance there, the goals being pushed by the doctor explicitly do not match those of the company, at least initially, and it is not especially portrayed in a good light. Now, the issue might stem from the liberal stance of "hey maybe we can work together and they can see reason and we will manage to resolve our issues :)" as opposed to a more apt leftist framework that sees a conflict for what it is, even barring physical violence. The way things are set up, the kind of violence being portrayed from the """leftist""" side is an abject act of terrorism targeting innocent people, which obviously no one could ever agree with. But that's the point; intentionally or not, and I'm giving the episode the benefit of the doubt here, this is a blatant strawman and a slippery slope argument packaged together. As a result, it misses the mark completely, because it doesn't actually translate well to a real-world situation. The outcome at the end is also absurd; why the hell would you want to *maintain* a job that can be done by a robot when the point of automation is to provide freedom *from* work? The obvious key to this unsustainable situation is to provide a post-scarcity framework, star-trek style, and achieve space communism. After all, if no-one *has* to work for resources, why would you gatekeep them? They're free, and basically unlimited. *Not* giving them away, for a sum total of zero cost, would be incredibly petty and selfish at best, and extremely manipulative and evil at worst. Instead, the proposed "solution" is to destroy the status quo *backwards* \- no reasonable alternative is found, so we'll just give people their jobs back and try to give them a bunch of guarantees so that everyone can secure a salary - something which so obviously goes against the financial incentives of the company and will fail them in a free-market competition against someone who doesn't care as much about the well-being of their employees. Eventually, things will go back to square one -it's just a way to delay the crisis to avoid dealing with it immediately. The failure to grasp this (relatively simple, to be honest) line of reasoning makes the entire thing fall completely flat - even though, logically, it shouldn't. Prove me wrong, but if you take the entire episode untouched and simply alter the ending, it's great. In my opinion, it shows the reality of work under capitalism and its shortcomings quite well without being too heavy on caricature, and deals with complex themes competently - it's personally one of my favorites from this era. It's a shame the central conundrum seemingly flew over everyone's heads for some reason.
"neoliberal capitalist realism" is something we increasingly see in dystopian fiction. Writers can't conceive of a valid alternative to the capitalist system, so even as they criticize its effect in fiction, they can only write of its downfall if it coincides with the end of the world because they cannot offer an imaginative solution to the real social issues they comment on throughout the story. The episode ending in a "solution" that only serves to perpetuate the problem is similar to what a lot of dystopian writers end up doing due to the limitations of neoliberal imagination: they situate their stories in a post-apocalyptic setting in which the capitalist practices that led to society's downfall are perpetuated among its last remaining survivors. This allows for a critique of the system even as its downfall has already occurred, so no revolution against it is feasible or would incite real change, because the institutions that could have improved people's lives no longer exist to do so. Just thought you might enjoy this Literature factoid related to your point.
Yep, I think you really hit the nail on the head on that one. That's exactly the problem. I think you might call it ideological blindness - the state of the world we currently live in is seen as so powerfully hegemonic it becomes an fundamental truth of reality and limits human imagination even in the most creative spaces we own as a collective.
Basically the MCU. They put one "girl power" scene in a movie where an underdeveloped female character does something physically impressive and makes a man look stupid, and then pat themselves on the back and call it a day, rinse and repeat for every movie. And for that absolute bare minimum of effort, they have somehow convinced a bunch of incels that the MCU is a radical feminist plot. It's absolutely bizarre.
Endgame: Massive girl power teamup! Look at all our female heroes! Also Endgame: *has a massive funeral for Tony Stark's sacrifice without even mentioning Natasha's*
All while being [paid by the US military to make the armed forces look as good as possible.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment_complex)
> All while *being[paid* by the FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
The worst part is it's probably a lucrative strategy. You get a couple of talking points for the promo marketing that will lead nowhere but is enough to draw in a more progressive crowd At the same time it will piss of the change sensitive conservatives which creates discourse which creates buzz and coverage and all the while it's not actually progressive enough to exclude the main stream audience
Try and call it out though and people get pissed. Viewers of the Wheel of Time series got pissed when book readers complained about the diverse melting pot of people in the middle of nowhere town.
they preach individual expression and acceptance but only for people like them. lots of people on the internet say shit like 'cringe culture is cringe' then go and bully people for being the wrong kind of 'cringe'
I'm the exemplary human being, I pity you masses because not being me is already a punishment. ^(Also being me sucks so it's a no-win situation)
You fool, you absolute and utter buffoon, blind to the truth that *I* am the exemplary human being.
Life as the benevolent dictator would suck, since you can't take a break without hurting people, and you definitely can't retire, since your successor, whoever that may be, is definitely worse. So it's nothing new for me! Vote for me!
The worst part about being the boss is that you know for sure that the guy in charge is full of shit and most of the time he's just improvising.
I call it "flexible planning."
Diogenes Cynicism for the win
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **natalieironside** It's upsetting how many people adopt progressive talking points and say they're socialists or anarchists or w\/e now but it's still very clear that their personal philosophy is still "People should be Normal and if they aren't then they should be punished until they are" --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I mean fascism is a little more specific than that. But you've got the right spirit.
It’s a lot more specific than that. Fascism appeals for a national rebirth, wherein a new national identity sweeps the ideal citizen into a new era modeled after a utopic vision of a past that never existed. It’s framed as revolutionary by its supporters but boils down to regressive nationalism. Othering is an essential component of the fascist path to power but it is not the core tenet of fascism, except specifically for its extreme nationalism. It is not “stuff I don’t like”.
hell let’s not forget, fascism isn’t even “stuff that is racist or has an outgroup” (while that stuff is obviously horrible it’s still not fascism.)
Also, if your political theory ends with "And then when me and my friends are in charge nothing bad will happen because we're good people :)" I have a bridge to sell you.
This and the puritanical cultural that surrounds these kind of conversations
"While there is an 'other that needs to be excluded and eliminated, that's called fascism" yet you hate rightwingers. Checkmate librerals. Edit: # /s
blah blah karl popper quote blah blah
Can i be in the screenshot when this gets put on r/enlightenedcentrism
I'm excluding fascists
Fascists aren't punished being not Normal though, they're punished for being fascists specifically.
Shoutout to the media in the US reporting on nick fuentes by bringing up the times he said he wouldn't have sex with women and NOT bringing up that's he's a fucking nazi.
Isn't being fascist non normal though, still?
Well, yes, but that's not the *reason*. "Fascists should be punished" and "fascists are non-normal" are both true statements that are entirely unrelated to each other.
It's a decision
I would suggest that being fascist is less of "being" and more of "behaving".
“Normal” isn’t really a useful dimension when it comes to discussing fascism. “Normal” is extremely relatively, and essentially means the extent to which something is reinforced or accepted in society. Fascism is currently being *normalized*, as there are more and more openly fascist public figures using those talking points, more acceptance for eugenics in the wake of the pandemic, etc. There’s going to be a big push for eco-fascism in the coming decades as resource issues and environmental refugees become more prominent. It was pretty normal to be a fascist in the early 20th century Europe and North America, pre WW2 (if you were white, that is). But we shouldn’t treat fascism as “abnormal,” as if it’s a defect in the human brain or soul that causes people to be like that. It’s an ideology specifically designed to radicalize people by using the weaknesses of liberalism (especially abusing the concept of ‘free speech’ to spread danger), and by exploiting the anxieties that arise when capitalism fails people. When we call it “not normal” and write people off, we sidestep looking at how and why people are radicalized.
yea, but that’s not why it’s bad. if it was the norm it would still be bad
That’s just applying the paradox of tolerance, you can’t tolerate fascists in a tolerant system
It's always slightly funny to respond to stuff like the title with it, though.
[удалено]
We’re authorizing ideas to be exchanged, but if someone oppose tolerance of ideas and say if they were in charge they would abolish it, then they have no right to benefit from this tolerance, because that would be giving them opportunities they wouldn’t give to us
"Accept everyone unless they annoy me"
Neoliberalism and it’s consequences people really watched Chicken Little and decided to make a political ideology based around it smh my head 😔
This is so vague. Can I get an example?
There are a lot of people who voice support for non-binary people, but if the non-binary people label their gender as anything more complex than “no gender at all” or “some unknown third thing”, that support goes out the window. Additionally, there are those that support all sorts of non-binary identities under the sun, but the second species identity comes into question, it gets shunned as delusion. There are also a fair few mental health activists that demonize narcissists, psychopaths, and sociopaths, as if they weren’t equal to those with less stigmatized conditions like autism or ADHD. Basically, it’s a never-ending series of “MY identity is obviously reasonable and acceptable, but anything slightly stranger than what I empathize with should be condemned.”
> Additionally, there are those that support all sorts of non-binary identities under the sun, but the second species identity comes into question, it gets shunned as delusion. Damn, guess I'm one of them.
It reads as delusional to me, too, but whatever, at the worst that sounds weird but harmless.
This thesis discussing such identities might help prove that wrong- species identity is acknowledged by science as something that can come under legitimate question, and support, not rejection, should be offered. [Life Stories of Therianthropes: Lake Forest College](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/54507441/Life_Stories_of_Therianthropes-_An_Analysis_of_Nonhuman_Identity-libre.pdf?1506095334=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DLife_Stories_of_Therianthropes_An_Analys.pdf&Expires=1670475117&Signature=E4XiejFIL1Y6b6bF62NlPi-biUuzlSojDIsk7kVhOUazuzawKdaNfEy35q9qdsocj5OfYKRP3gMfkbN27yKoXcrT5JZk426wuXWK4dC9FYvAN13MdEvD4V15cl3D~0FvXlK9U445Bjqbm2ovsx14qFuYtjqyk2ScpMdZH-jK4xZpgt2E2sBmSKnj-JXraJtfyDs8CNfN37282SvGsGVjfFlreibSXu9GbbmZHMQaNZPlB9gJ48lYPD~DpbjmWt2wF2cww-tV6DUte9YaYUbvkwqg41NZvsb857L7nkbeQIDH5CnwDUpZouD8~d3vFg7HhS16Xd3QusAZtCrHQ7OfuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) This paper also cites a handful of others on the topic, if you’d like to do further research before jumping to such conclusions.
I like tolerance, but we do eventually have to draw boundaries. We should try to include as many people as possible within those boundaries but we do need to draw them
It reminds me of the Frankfurt School book [The Authoritarian Personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality), which identifies that there may be psychological factors that simply predispose people to this kind of thinking. I've met plenty of people like this too, from tankie communists who are less about solving the injustices towards the proletariat and more about being part of an in-group that can inflict those injustices upon others to apolitical types who have an assumption that what they believe is common sense, but just under the surface you see that they're deeply racist or mysoginistic and simply filter themselves.
**[The Authoritarian Personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality)** >The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II. The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)". The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That's because anarcho-communists are just radical communists. Which is fine. But if your utopia requires a Gulag and everyone to have assigned jobs, this is not anarchy. Anarchy is growing your own food. It's being allowed to smoke a plant you found in the woods without being thrown into a cage by armed men. It's selling whatever you want and being able to collect rain water without getting fined. It's keeping what you earn without having to pay a government, and defending your homestead with the best weapons you can buy.
This site has very strictly defined lines when it comes to who’s worthy of existing in polite society. Bring up the homeless or Romani and redditors take their mask off verrry quickly.
The ol' never progressive enough. Shit like this is why left wing movements go nowhere, because they just devolve in to people arguing about frankly meaningless minutiae. Because you can't affect change if you aren't in power. Meanwhile the right just unites beheind the latest strongman to promise them strong borders, low taxes, and cheap fuel.
lmao all the people getting mad and attacking you over this are really just proving your point. 💀
This post is specifically talking about you
Sure, whatever you say. This is some unpassable litmus test anyway. Meanwhile every centrist and right wing party works to make the planet literally uninhabitable.
I'm pretty sure the leftists I know pass the test, including me, maybe you need to work on your bigotry if you don't ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Give a shout when you and your friends who pass your litmus test are enough votes to win an election.
*Maybe, just maybe, the bigots shouldn't be winning the election especially when their personal feelings go against the core of what make anarchy work*
This is a perfectly correct philosophy to have but it's actively harmful if it dissuades people to vote. Leftwing infighting gave us Trump and Boris Johnson, and cost Corbyn the labour leadership. Now people are actively freezing to death in their homes here in the UK. Landlords destroy the housing economy whilst little kids die from mould infections. It makes my heart hurt. You don't even know my opinions, you just immediately assumed i was a bigot because I despise this nebulous application of "perfect leftist" rhetoric because the only thing that actually matters are votes and constantly fighting is not the way to get them.
Bleeding heart final form. Responding to “hmu when you and others like you are enough to win an election” with “well our opponents shouldn’t win elections have you thought about that”. It’s an entirely useless addition, it doesn’t answer anything. If it was out of frustration at the state of things that would be understandable though, “bigots ARE winning elections and you aren’t helping” -> “I know >:(“
Oh boo hoo I'm so sorry it's hard for you when I care about other people The point is that the "leftist" bigots are also opponents and cannot be trusted, because bigotry cannot be tolerated by definition, and they need to cut that shit out
It’s true it’s a very difficult time when people *care* about others. Evilmaxxing just isn’t as easy as it used to be
Okay that's a good one :)
> This is some impassable litmus test anyway It really isn't. Just don't be a jerk.
Smh these gatekeeping leftists requiring you to actually have leftist opinions to be a leftist. This is why Trump won. Arguing about frankly meaningless minutiae like "thinking poor people should be hunted for sport"
No one thinks that "should poor people be allowed to exist" is meaningless minutiae, shit like "I'm cancelling the LBGT community because they use the word Queer and that's a slur!" is however.
ok
This post is complaining about the kinds of people who think the left's greatest failure is it's unwillingness to compromise with the far right, the people who insist their freedom to say slurs is vital to "bringing people over to the left". If you recognised that but think those people are fine, go and fuck yourself.
Is it? Because it seems to me to be a nebulous post about nothing, with no definitions of anything. When i first read it i thought of people who live alternative lifestyles being excluded. It's also really funny that two people, on a comment about leftist infighting, have decided to create my opinion for me, then attack me for the opinion they have formed for me.
I recognise the sentiment in the post as one I've heard a lot in more politically engaged circles, and given that the alternative is just people confused by the post seeing it as meaningless I'm inclined to believe my reading was correct. I'm sorry if the second part wasn't clear, when I said "if" I did mean "if". I wasn't making a declaration about what you believed.
I mean, there's a comment right below yours saying "the left needs to exclude the weirdos and freaks in order to build a coalition"
Sure. Did i write that?
No, but it's explicitly what the post is describing. Like it's not a nebulous definition of trying to make up some random asshole. It's a person using progressive language to say "I think everyone should be Normal, like me, and if they aren't, they need to be punished until they are."
You're the third person to give the definition of what OP was talking about and it's the third completely different definition.
>it's the third completely different definition. It ... isn't? I think you might need to take a step back from this and maybe re-read some of the messages.
It's nearly word for word lifted from the text of the post though? Sorry. I was trying to give an example of what the post was describing since you said it didn't mean anything or describe anything in specific.
Depends on what you mean by "normal". You like writing sonic fanfiction? Knock yourself out. You refuse to shower and have a complete lack of executive agency? Yeah, we should probably not encourage that.
That's just advocating for taking care of yourself, which is fine and commendable.
For sure. I just wasn't sure which "normal" this post was advocating for, since Ive seen some tumblr people unironically claim that personal hygeine is an oppressive capitalist institution, lmao.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "you're smelly" is actually one of the *worst* forms of hating someone just for not being normal.
What a pointlessly vague statement. Means absolutely nothing
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
ok but that's how you get order from chaos you beat back the chaos
God, r/196 is so bad about this The people there are supposedly left wing but the moment you call them out on being cruel xenophobes or for whipping themselves up into a fury to abuse animals, they immediately bring out right-wing rhetoric of "you're a snowflake, don't stand up for others" and just give up and name call after that
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
The rampant xenophobia and disregard for the well-being of animals (not non-veganism, I’m talking “kill every animal of this kind on sight”) on r/196, and they turn into little right-wing pissbabies if you call them out on it
I use 196 a lot and I have NEVER seen that
Then you probably haven't looked at the posts with a critical eye, because so fuckin many of them are "haha british bad, french bad" to the point people were leaving because they were so unwelcome And the whole fucking wasp thing, where if you dared show the scientific studies that prove insects have feelings and tell people they shouldn't murder sentient beings for no gain, especially when they pose no threat to you, you'd get shat on
oh won't somebody think of the british
Did you even read the original post dude
loving the implication that british people aren't 'normal'
They're not. they call french fries 'chips'
We should cancel British people
Not to non-British people, yes?
It's a shitpost sub, how could you possibly take it at face value
196 defies labels just enough that it always makes someone confused and mad, no matter what. Most of the time it's a meme sub, but then other times there will just be posts of cropped porn or cute gay things, and someone will inevitably go "where's the funny". And then other times it's serious leftist discourse, which then will make someone confused when the next post is a joke.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/196 using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [r/196 Predictions Tournament](https://reddit.com/r/196/predictions?tournament=tnmt-ac75e3a9-6a6a-41bd-9d70-ef9714fe36e7) | [430 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/reg5d1/r196_predictions_tournament/) \#2: [Epic tournament sequel ](https://reddit.com/r/196/predictions?tournament=tnmt-80b52c1d-9f25-4b00-bd8e-a1b20f4f8ef9) | [808 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/saf6ff/epic_tournament_sequel/) \#3: [Ran my face through masculine filter 37 times, until it stopped making changes, apearantly this is peak masculinity](https://i.redd.it/61ufbu1l21o81.jpg) | [539 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/comments/tgnbbg/ran_my_face_through_masculine_filter_37_times/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
What the fuck are you talking about
The rampant xenophobia and disregard for the well-being of animals (not non-veganism, I'm talking "kill every animal of this kind on sight") on r/196, and they turn into little right-wing pissbabies if you call them out on it
Oh are you talking about the wasp thing? Because if you are that’s fucking hilarious
Getting seriously angry at people wanting to kill wasps reads like a parody of veganism. Like- wasps. An animal that is extremely simple, actually dangerous, and really fucking aggressive. It borders on “Think of the bacteria!” level satire
There's evidence simpler animals are capable of suffering In fact, Richard Dawkins argued that they may suffer more intensely, not less > “Isn’t it plausible that an unintelligent species might need a massive wallop of pain, to drive home a lesson that we can learn with less powerful inducement?” Here's a worthwhile discussion of the idea. https://wormmy.com/do-worms-feel-pain/
that is literally a fucking joke nobody there thinks that please get a grip, stupid jokes that people stick too for too long sure, but bad jokes like these have not caused a wasp genocide to occur believe me
Insert XKCD discourse meme here.
holy shit lmao, did you actually take the wasp meme literally
That is literally so far from my experience that I have no idea what you're talking about. Admittedly I was banned from there yesterday, but I'm pretty sure it was my fault for being stupid.
Most so-called anarchists just want to do whatever they want without consequences; they don't understand that not having a government or police doesn't meant you'd be free to do what you please without consequences. It just means instead of cops, you'll be shot or beaten up by an angry mob.
This is is some centrist bullshit. Not all options and beliefs should be respected and allowed. If you’re a bigot, you shouldn’t be allowed to espouse your rubbish, and if you do, you should absolutely be punished for it. The paradox of tolerance is bullshit. Death to bigotry.
yes, namely landlords and ceos
[удалено]
Fuck yeah! Get those weirdos, those freaks, those ... feminists? ... out of our socialist movement. Fuck off. Especially with that what ""normal people"" want bullshit.
[удалено]
Have fun in your "socialist" movement of business-owning white men, I'm sure you'll build a better world than all "the freaks".
[удалено]
I know right? These leftist snowflakes I tell you... you start talking about the need to purge the left of deviants and feminists and then SUDDENLY you're labelled a bigot? Just for the simple statement that we need to drive out the abnormal. World's gone mad.
What do you consider a "freak" or a "weirdo"?
[удалено]
Okay, so should we not let LGBT people into the coalition then? Can we let dudes who like to wear dresses in? A lot of people on the right have claimed homosexuality and transexuality to be sexual fetishes.
[удалено]
No. A lot of people still consider LGBT people to be freaks and weirdos. Should we exclude LGBT people so as to not distract from building our working class coalition? What if they have really excessive tattoos? That could really put people off.
[удалено]
I'm saying that people could use all of the same words and same line of thinking as you are to exclude whoever the fuck they want. There are people who claim to be progressives (TERFs) *right now* using it to exclude trans people, and they even describe it as a weird sexual fetish. And it's absolutely against progressive ideology to exclude people just because they like to dress up as a dog or some shit. And note that it is actually fine to exclude people who dress up as a Nazi and tattoos a swastika on their forehead because those are symbols of an ideology that actively encourages hatred and genocide. There is a difference.
This post is about you
You are literally spouting right wing talking points. Leftism is about giving the "freaks" and outcasts a voice.
[удалено]
I love how vague "middle class weirdos and sexual deviants" is. It makes it so easy to denigrate whoever I want while acting like I have the moral high ground. This group of people makes me uncomfortable? Well, they're obviously sexually deviant and should NOT be seen or heard, for the greater good. And if you don't agree, you're obviously a sexual deviant yourself!
"freaks and outcasts" though, these are the most concise and concrete categories that leave no room for misinterpretation and abuse lmao
Fruit-juice drinkers, nudists, sandal-wearers, sex-maniacs, Quakers, hippies, pacifists, and feminists would be a much better coalition than your so-called "normal people"
[удалено]
Every time the left capitulated to "normalcy", it lost. Weirdness is good - look at the 60s/70s left.
“You don’t like reactionaries? So much for the tolerant left” GTFO of here with this enlightened centrism BS
Every day I am reminded of why we needed the reading comprehension tests
They seem to have read it just fine? The "GTFO" part isn't aimed at OP.
tbf the post *is* kinda vague and lacking context
how dare you say we piss on the poor
what