#you dont need to make a fucking leftist statement of it. anyway

[dragonowlie]

Every day I see Posts on this webbed site

[themostradicalconceptussy]

Quick reminder in light of the recenent situation with Neil Gaiman

You can (and should) condemn Mr Gaiman without condoning TERFs. At the end of the day, regardless of if the report is biased by the nature of the political leanings of its reporters, we as leftist feminists (or what I see most of us self describing as anyway) preach about believing victims first and yet some of you refuse to because you disagree politically with victims. We have no evidence that this is a smear campaign, and you are all for believing victims until its a guy you have a parasocial Tumblr relationship with. Neil Gaiman is not your friend. He's not your buddy Neil, he's a random man in his 60s you've (most likely at least) never met in your fucking life. You do not know him, so don't delude yourself to think you do.

If you love or hate trans people, SA is SA, abuse is abuse. Whether he was, at best, an irresponsible BDSM partner who misused his status as a writer, or, at worst, an outright abuser, or something in between, he is not defensible here. It is of course a complex situation, and not clean cut, but we need to practice what we fuckin preach.

If we don't believe or value the experiences of victims of abuse, or other forms of crime, based on their political beliefs, that is discrimination, and contradicts everything that the community he had cultivated on Tumblr claimed to stand for. If a conservative woman was beating abused, she's still a victim and we, even as staunchly leftist progressives should listen to her, no? You don't have to agree with everyone's opinions to acknowledge their plight.

At the end of the day, what has happened is wrong, and his response was half arsed bullshit that reflected the reality presented in the allegations, and did nothing but serve to make him look worse, much like the earlier situation this year with Wilbur Soot that you may have seen me reblogging about. Bad people are bad people, and the proof is in the pudding, in this case the half arsed responses that serve only as unintentional admissions of guilt.

As for the nature of the publication, I imagine as a heavily radfem anti-trans page, it was more than happy to be the first to break the news of the bad character of a prominent trans activist in television/literature, as it fits their "TRANS = ABUSER" narrative. I do not deny that. However, the victims themselves, as far as I can tell, are evidently former fans, who present actual evidence as confirmed by Mr Gaiman's statements, and thus we know this wasn't, at least on their end, done as a TERFism motivated career assassination. If the publication took this under the guise of causing ill repute for TIRFs and progressive politics, we cannot prove that, and it does not negate the nature of what has occurred.

I'm not here to argue with TERFs, or anyone else, about the nature of gender. That's not what I want to incite, I simply want to acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy from certain people in this online space. A victim of abuse that is a radfem is still a victim, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I can acknowledge that, because guess what? Me disagreeing with someone doesn't make them subhuman dirt that doesn't have rights. What I'm really saying in this part is, don't bring gender politics into the reblogs, I do NOT want that and I will simply block anyone trying to incite needless arguments with me or anyone else.

TLDR; BELIEVE VICTIMS AND DONT BE SELFISH DICKHEADS WHO PRIORITISE THEIR OWN ENJOYMENT OF MEDIA OVER REPERCUSSIONS FOR ARSEHOLES AND CRIMINALS BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THE WANKER IS YOUR BESTIE AFTER HE REBLOGGED YOU ONCE. WHERE THOSE INVOLVED STAND ON GENDER POLITICS DOESNT CHANGE THE NATURE OF UNRELATED IMMORAL/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR THEY INSTIGATED/WERE VICTIM TO.

[vaspider]

just a heads up that that post abt ppl reconnecting is by a like. meeeega z*onist. i usually am like eh ppl dont need to check usernames for everyone they reblog but for that one since its like. relatatef to an extent to the post i wanted to let you know for you and the people who follow u! i hope u are having whatever the best day for ur circumstances is

You're not Jewish, by your own admission. I went to make sure, before I started talking. You have some Jewish heritage, and you might look at converting, but you're not Jewish, so let's start there. And I am going to be as patient as I possibly can under the circumstances.

You have essentially just walked into the living room of a family that you're not a part of and said, "that thing that was just said about connecting with this family that I'm not a part of? You should not listen to it because it came from a term that those of us outside this family have rendered meaningless by overuse and abuse. You should not interact with that person because I am telling you they're a Bad one of y'all, because I've determined this word is Bad, and everyone has beaten it into the ground."

How do you think that would go, if you walked into my living room and pointed at someone there, as a complete and total stranger, and said, 'you should take my value statement about one of the people in your extended family'? Do you think it would go well, whether or not I agreed with that family member, that you've interjected yourself into intrafamily discussions, especially intrafamily discussions about our family's emotional survival and connection?

Because that's what this is, to be clear. Those people? They are my family. You just came in off the street and said, "Take my word on your family. They're bad. You shouldn't interact with them."

What's more, one of the two people you're pointing at, the only two people who spoke on that post, is someone who was present, and indeed the sole official witness, at a moment in my life which rates in terms of joy and personal meaning right up there with my wedding and the moment the midwife placed my daughter, naked and screaming, on my belly. You just came in to my living room and said, "The person who witnessed your mikveh immersion seven years ago? Bad. Take it from me, person who has never spoken to you before."

Do you also walk into drag shows, point at the person on the stage, and yell, "That's a groomer!"? Because that's basically what y'all sound like when you do this: you're coming in from the outside, wielding a word you've effectively rendered meaningless against people who belong here.

I'm real fucking tired of -- literally every time I interact with any post about Jewishness at all -- someone lunging in to tell me that There Be Bad Jews, or demanding that, because I am interacting with members of my family, I answer a bunch of fucking "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.

That was literally just in the last 24h. One post about how Judaism survives because we reconnect with each other, one post about how American institutions like Chabad are being labeled 'Israeli' as a means of smearing them. Literally dealing with living as a fucking Jew in the diaspora is now simply Not Allowed To Be Spoken Of, apparently, unless I strictly validate that everyone in the thread is not a Bad Bad Zionist, which of course applies to every Jew who says something we don't like, regardless of their repeatedly-stated values or self-identification.

It's almost like the end point of all of that is Jews simply not talking about being Jewish anywhere that they might be seen by someone who doesn't like that. If we can only speak about being Jewish if our Judaism meets the strict, ever-changing ethical purity standards of a bunch of Puritan-descended American leftists, then we can't speak about our lives at all, can we?

Funny, that.

Anyway, you have self-declared Zionists in your last 30 reblogs, so like, if you want to spend time endlessly policing someone's blog, make it your own.

Nobody ever send me asks like this ever again. This is the last one I'll even vaguely humor.

[gr0veyard]

Ooc.; also other stuff im giving my 2 Cents to, so skip if you dont care

[[MORE]]

Puberty blockers:

PBs are not irreversible lmao. They don't mutilate a minors body. They merely keep puberty on hold long enough for the minor in question to have time to make sure they want to transition. PUBERTY is what is irreversible. Imagine going thru puberty and growing into a body that at worst will make you wanna KYS and at best hate looking at yourself in the mirror. Do you know how expensive transition can be after puberty? PLEASE do more research before making asinine statements like PBs being comparable to mutilation. PBs only hold puberty as long as theyre being taken, meaning that if you stop taking em puberty will set in just as it usually would.

"Even hormone blockers and transitional hormones are largely untested when it comes to long term effects" is a baseless claim which a little googling can be disproven.

"One of my friends in high school medically transitioned, and it did nothing to help their dysphoria. It just made them even more depressed, and they later killed themselves." I'm sorry for your loss, genuinly. That really sucks. But as much it makes me look like an asshole for saying this, this is an appeal to emotion (aka not factually backing your other claims) and also circumstancial. If your friend's suicide was tied to their transition, their case is just that: theirs. One of the biggest contributors to trans suicude rates is the unattainability of affordable transition and dysphoria caused by the changes made by puberty, only topped by abuse from people towards trans people. By advocating for PBs to be prohibited or limited, you don't help. You make the problem worse.

Communism:

"I’m against Communist and Fascism as they’re both extremely Authoritarian systems that give the government complete control over how you live your life." Since I'm a socialist and not a communist I cant speak for communism, but most allegedly communist states today still basically operate on a capitalist core, where they have communist parties etc., but still have a free market for instance. China for example, but Russia too.

Capitalism amasses copious amounts of wealth on the backs of the lower class in a short amount of time but is ultimately unsustainable. Vaush on youtube has a number of videos on this I recommend you to check out.

Healthcare:

"You can’t have a right to the services and labor of another person, their own freedom is taken away by that." No one is saying that should happen. Ideally, the state pays for this healthcare and before you say anything about that: I'm from a country without america's privatized healthcare. It's never been an issue here, people aren't fucking terrified shitless to go to the doctor bc they could go into crippling debt. Sure, you gotta wait a lil longer than someone w a private insurance company (which still exists but isnt necessary to live) in the waitingroom but that's annoying at worst.

I went to america end of 2019 to visit my gf and I fell really ill there. I had to go to the doctor there and I nearly felt my soul leave my body when I had to pay 100 FUCKING DOLLARS HOLY SHIT. thats nearly a fourth of my monthly income bro, how can you claim this to be okay? Ofc medstaff still need to be paid but oh my gods this is not okay. If I had to live with this system for the rest of my life it's fair to say I'd never go to the fucking doctor. And that'd be worse for the docs AND FOR ME.

"If you die or develop incurable illness awaiting treatment for months, there’s nothing anyone can do. If you’re treated right away and unfortunately end up with loads of medial debt, it’s unfortunate, but you’re still alive. You can still try to fundraise money, get donations, or if you’re skilled, work it off. It’s really shitty, but necessary." N- no????? It reaLLY ISNT THOUGH??? As I've stated before, this is not an issue w public healthcare. It's smth that's an issue in general and it DOES happen in america right now. Where I live this doesnt happen to my knowledge. Why should it? The gov is gonna pay anyway so might as well get it done and get the next patient. You shouldnt have to go into debt to live. That's not humane.

"I don’t think the poor should die, I don’t want the suffering to be left to their fate." Contradictory to the part where you think going into debt is necessary. Being in debt IS suffering. *I* am in debt, and I suffer because of it everyday. And it's not because of healthcare.

When going into debt to heal is your only option as an alternative to possibly dying or suffering on, then making that choice is like having to choose between the black plague and cholera.

"Buy a gun, grow a garden, learn to build shelter, and make plans to invade a neighboring territory and become it’s technocratic warlord after your country collapses into an unlivable hellscape." Making a joke like this at the end of a post about serious topics like this is kind of trivializing the entire issue and a little disrespectful. Don't do that please. It's like you're comparing to Fallout 4 and I shouldn't need to point out why that's bad.

At the end of the day, Im not trying to change your mind bc thats futile and not my job. But I do absolutely intend to fact check claims I know for a fact are BS, or educate myself to make my own judgement, and so should you. If you want to know how truthful smth is, listen to multiple scources (centrist AND leftist) and crosscompare wether what you hear abt certain leftist ideas is in fact true or not.

Or dont and continue living in an echochamber. Your call.

Have a nice day.

[red-stocking]

How do you come to terms with the fact that a lot of poor people hold racist views (due to lack of education, living in rural communities that act as echo chambers of the same opinions, etc) while maintaining class solidarity? I don't mean to make it sound like all poor people are racist (I'm pretty poor myself tbh) but I know that statistically speaking, many of them are. When I hear working class, I can't help but think trump voter sometimes...

This is an excellent question!! This is a question that deserves a lot of discussion (so yeah, this is an essay, sorry!), and one that some people on the left may answer differently than I am going to, so I encourage you to get several points of view. My experience is very US based. The US is the only industrialized country without a labor party, and with the red scare we have a very unique history when it comes to workers movements.First of all, lets go over what class solidarity means (and what it does not). Class solidarity I really do think can be summed up in the phrase “An injury to one is an injury to all”. Like, if there is one worker that is being exploited, then it is bad for everyone. If anyone among the class is being victimized, we all need to step in to defend them. This means that white workers need to come out and defend black men from violence by the police. It means that all male workers should strike in solidarity with their female coworkers when they learn there is a wage gap. And yes, it does also mean that immigrant workers should not cross picket lines….But class solidarity does NOT mean that immigrants are to blame for US citizens losing jobs, even if they do cross picket lines. Marxism comes with the understanding of the material circumstances that have lead to immigrant workers being in such a dire economic position- and that it is the capitalists who take advantage of that who are the ones to blame. Solidarity does NOT mean pushing aside the struggles that our black, women, gay, immigrant workers face in order to prioritize the struggles of the ‘less oppressed’. 

So, yeah, even in theory class solidarity is something that is going to be very difficult to build. You try to imagine telling a Mexican immigrant mother of three that she should not take that job because ~class solidarity~. Like, no fucking way. In an ideal world, the union organizers would help her find another job, or get her connections that could help her find one. but lets be real.

I know what you mean though, when you say you think of Trump supporters. i was outside a homeless shelter, defending it from being shut down by the city, and the camera man (amateur, not from a news station) taking statements in support of the shelter confided that he was a trump supporter. He believed that when Trump said this one thing he was really supporting homeless people! (who even knows what that thing was trump never makes any damn sense)The lesson of this story is that yes, these people have racist bias  because they could excuse every racist thing trump said, but that’s very different from voting for trump FOR his racist ideas first and foremost. Many people who voted for trump did so because of party loyalty, or because nothing about their situation had changed with a democrat in office, or because they saw Clinton as the embodiment of Wall Street (which she is) and everything that was going to lead them to unemployment. This is how having two capitalist parties screws over everyone. Lesser evil-ism eventually leads to more evil.When it comes to specifically with dealing with racist bias among white working class people, from an organizational standpoint it all comes down to how you decide you want to use your resources, time, and energy. Lots of leftist groups focus in urban areas- where racism is less of a problem than it is in rural areas, because of the constant interaction between white, black, latino people in their day-to-day jobs. When a black guy agrees to pick up your shift so you can go to your kid’s birthday party, no doubt you’re probs not gonna be as antagonistic to black people in general. Also, a lot of leftist groups are focusing more and more on the youth, the FUTURE OF SOCIETY! They are much more receptive to socialism, class unity, and well- less racist. Like, yes, there are polls that show youth still have a lot of racial bias, but most of that is kept close to the chest in today’s urban youth and you can’t deny things have changed in the past 50 years. It is largely the youth that spear-heads revolutionary movements- the average age of the Bolshevik party in its early years was 19!!! The rest of the population- whether they would agree or not- WILL follow them, even if they started out with racist beliefs.In any case, like I said, a leftist organization has to choose where it is going to spend efforts to recruit new members. At this stage in the US, these are not going to be people who are way out in rural areas who think mexicans are stealing all the jobs. First, we dont have the resources to go out to the boonies anyway, let alone for someone who thinks we should attack people of color. The workers who have really deep-seated racist beliefs are not ones that we want to spend time and energy on, at least in this phase.Now, there may be exceptions- if someone is otherwise very left-leaning, is an involved union member, and generally agrees with a lot of our other ideas, we may set aside time to have discussions on race, the history of the oppression of black people, discussions on imperialism and immigration, and hopefully we can change their mind on some issues. As an individual who may confront certain other racist workers, I advise trying to facilitate a discussion on one of these topics. Give them room to express where they are coming from, try and find out why they think the way they think. Like, where did they hear that a Mexican might steal their job? Have you seen or heard about an example of this? Try to be patient with them. Maybe give examples of a Mexican you know, tell a bit of their story, and find things that they have in common. You will see a lot of the vehement racism trickle away when they realize someone is actually listening to them and their experiences. This is not an easy or quick process, it will NOT be an easy discussion, and you should only try it if you are willing to put in that time and energy, and if they seem like they can actually be won over with discussion alone. This is why leftist groups often leave it to the wayside, to confront at a later date. If you encounter antagonizers that simply pose racist ‘gotchya’ questions to try and make your ideas seem wrong, it might be helpful to go over some quick elevator talk answers so you can respond quickly and show anyone else listening that you will defend people of color. That is kind of a separate issue though, i think, than what you’re referring to. 

Later on, workers with racist attitudes will be brought into the fold- they will come willingly and their minds will change by the example we lead. It is capitalism that fuels the fires of these divisions between the races. When capitalism is threatened, when they are weak, they will not be able to keep pouring out that fuel onto us, those divisions will start to crumble. During a strike, or a demonstration, these workers will share the same ideas, and that experience will do most of the work with regards to chipping away at racist bias.

For example, the national railroad strike in the US in 1877 largely breached race lines, capitalists had to go super heavy after that with racist propaganda to prevent it from growing or happening again. In St. Louis, MO, a place where racial divisions between black and white people were never anything but fucking Intense, the workers really did unite and briefly seize control of the city’s imports and exports. They were betrayed by a Klan member working for the capitalists. When there is a concrete struggle, throughout history it has been shown that workers will come together to fight a class war. Eventually, those with heavy racial bias will come over to our side- they are already learning that the capitalists of either party in the US do not have their best interests in mind. 

But only when you have a strong workers’ party and infrastructure can you bring those in. My advice is to focus on expressing solidarity with other oppressed groups, develop some go-to responses for a few popular racist statements, show by your actions, rather than your words, that you stand for all workers. Sorry this was such an incredibly long answer, I hope this helps! please feel like you can ask follow up questions too, you or anyone else.