|
Cingulate posted:Intentionally? Doesn't matter. As part of a system? Then it's the system. To see poverty stricken people with lovely attitudes towards race be condemned to the political leprosy pile while embracing neocon assholes who respects the right pronouns is a frightening development among people calling themselves leftists.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". The Women's march is a great example. Help these "regular" women understand Black issues once they are there marching with you instead of shunning them so you have lost their support entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Saying that now is s a bit like starting a count of terrorist attack victims on 9/12/2001 (or stopping on 9/10/2001). Only the date is Nov 9th 2016 (or Nov 7th). No, it's not even close. It's shooting down the notion that trans or social justice activism has been impotent and self-sabotaging since some unmentioned earlier date. Frosted Flake posted:Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". The bathroom bill debate is about whether or not states get to define personhood. It also eliminates the ability of municipalities to have any say about working conditions and wages. The whole debate has been poorly explained, and sounds nuts to people outside the context, that much is true. But if we cut through the bullshit saying we should give up opposing legislation like that - and the larger debate that surrounds it - because it isn't important to "regular" working-class people and trans people (who on average, are more likely to be poor) is really dumb. Any broad based coalition of "regular" people is pretty much going to focused on economic issues. And as it turns out this whole bathroom debate thing is certainly rooted in economic issues! Dreylad fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". So what's the problem with explaining labor issues to someone with self-assigned pronouns? They can probably understand not getting a job or being treated poorly in one. Or they're an actual child, unable to work, or super bougie. It should be easy enough to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". Holy poo poo, where to start. Framing white women as "regular women" even with the scare quotes is gross as hell. And telling black women how to combat misogynoir is just unnecessary. Are you a black woman? No? Then shut the gently caress up. Telling trans people what issues should be important to them and how to combat transphobia is also gross AF. Are you trans? No? Then you know what to do. Stop telling women to be subordinate, what battles they need to fight and how to fight them. Koalas March fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". Your "shoot the hostage" idea is pretty poo poo man. The grusome intent behind the so called bathroom bills, outside of the hush-hush economic aspect, is that trans-women (specifically, as they don't give a gently caress about trans-men) will be forced to go into a men's room where they'll be mocked, attacked, beaten, raped and likely murdered, with the idea that they'll "learn not to be trans around REAL America" and go hide in their homes or pretend to be men. That's the actual effect of such a law. Innocent people will die, purposefully, by conservative hands. Again. Telling vulnerable people "nah, gently caress it, we have better things to do than 'engage' them over it" is crass to the point of lunacy. And here's the thing; If you're a white worker (Hi! That's me and mine!) and you take offense that someone with a voice cares about blatant attempts to hurt already vulnerable people instead of your personal issues, you're a lovely person who didn't take any proper lessons away from Sesame Street as a child. Nobody said they won't help you. Democrats have been trying for years and you just scream at them for not performing impossible magic tricks to "make it be 1955 again," and vote in the very people who offshore your poo poo and burn down your infastructure. But because someone dared take a loving knee at a football game to protest the literal murders of unarmed black men by police around the country, you get indignant and need to "punish" the liberals for such a slieight. gently caress that, and gently caress you (you being the proverbial selfish, myopic Trump supporter).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Holy poo poo, where to start. Framing white women as "regular women" even with the scare quotes is gross as hell. And telling black women how to combat misogynoir is just unnecessary. Are you a black woman? No? Then shut the gently caress up. Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. Telling people to shut up unless they're X, is a good way to make them feel that they aren't wanted in any kind of movement, and they'll stop participating. How many trans women and black women do you think there are? The Million Woman march will have a hard time reaching that number if women who aren't X (let alone supportive men) feel like at best their participation will be begrudgingly tolerated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
End boss Of SGaG* posted:So if labor activism can't accomplish anything, and social activism is irrelevant, what then? Do you protest labor abuses and try to organize unions anyway and hope people help or politicians change their minds? Do you boost progressive politicians and hope they can get elected and aren't ignored or crushed? Or is it literally just waiting for a gamble that Trump can gently caress up his party and if not, oh well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. You mean like assuming that all the "tumblr kids" are snowflakes and irrelevant, and then blaming them for not being all on board automatically? Is it only you that decides who's not worth it in the movement, or do all the members get a say on that? I can feel the IDPol storm.. it's coming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. Nope sorry, you're still super bigoted for assuming white cishet women are regular women, and that the only POC women are black women. I'm glad chicanx, the larger latinx community, AAPI, SE, South and Central Asians, and Middle Eastern women all don't exist to you! Maybe white women should be less threatened by POC women in power and be less fragile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Here's the thing Frosted Flake, if someone's tone or argument is going to keep you from being an ally just because they hurt your feelings with the truth, then you were never an ally. Your job as an ally is to call out racism/transphobia and listen to the actual people in those groups who are living those very real experiences. It is not your job to police or bully them into following whatever agenda you have, or whatever method that you, a non-black or non-trans, non-person-who-lives-their-experiences-every-day-of-their-lives, think is best for them. If someone saying "sit back, we're leading this movement, you need to listen to our voices and not police us" is going to make you stop fighting for trans people, or against racism, then you were never really for them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:gently caress me if I know. I'm perfectly useless here I fear. The right thing to do is to emulate successful tactics of other leftist populists, see Bernie, Syriza and Pomedos. Go further left by either creating a smaller party that supplants it, or in the case of America, supplanting the parties current views with more radical left ones. While this seems unfeasible in a two party system, grassroots movements can push parties to the towards a side, which is essentially what Trump did. You can appeal to a lot of the voters through a shared economic standpoint, like Bernie's anti globalist stances. The fact the he and Trump shares some economic policies is telling. You need a political ideology which can conveniently explain to people why their country and the situation is the way it is, and what is to be done to improvement. Hillarys greatest mistakes is not realizing that her description of "everything is great!" did not fit most Americans reality, not providing a convincing explanation why is it like so nor any proposed solutions. Remember that the current democratic tactic is to wait out Trump, hope he makes a fool of himself then run the same spiel again in 2020, which will definitely won't work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
lol the standards for being allies is like 'we may not even like each other or agree on much at all but perhaps by voting for the same politician there is some chance something I want might happen and something you want might happen so I guess we'll pretend to tolerate each other'. For example, evangelicals are allies of Trump. This whole 'oh you didn't agree with absolutely everything I just said? You were never an ally' is like exhibit A for the case stating left wing activism is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Like in reality you want to be telling absolutely everyone who has the slightest agreement with you about even the slightest thing 'Wow, you are and always have been my ally, lets all go to political movements together and vote with me ok?'. Why activists seem to think telling people with slight differences of opinion that they aren't allies and furthermore never were allies is baffling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Like in reality you want to be telling absolutely everyone who has the slightest agreement with you about even the slightest thing 'Wow, you are and always have been my ally, lets all go to political movements together and vote with me ok?'. Why activists seem to think telling people with slight differences of opinion that they aren't allies and furthermore never were allies is baffling. Yeah, differences of opinion like whether POC and trans women are regular women, these are people I want in my movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Yeah, differences of opinion like whether POC and trans women are regular women, these are people I want in my movement. Do you think "regular" woman in this context means "white," or "Non-activist"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Getting suckered into fights about trans bathrooms when the vast majority of people have never seen a transperson is missing the commonality of nearly everyone being hosed over on other issues. If you form a coalition, have "regular" people supporting you because you support them in their struggles then you can say "oh by the way we need you to help out on this". ate poo poo on live tv posted:Do you think "regular" woman in this context means "white," or "Non-activist"? have you tried reading before posting friend
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Yeah, differences of opinion like whether POC and trans women are regular women, these are people I want in my movement. What did strawmen ever do to you huh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:What did strawmen ever do to you huh? have you considered reading before posting friend
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:What did strawmen ever do to you huh? He literally used the term "regular" women. This is not a drum you want to keep beating, my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
stone cold posted:have you tried reading before posting friend I did read it. But apparently in your race-addled mind, regular means "white," but I and the poster see it as meaning non-activist women. I.e. just an everyday woman who wants to march for her rights. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I did read it. But apparently in your race-addled mind, regular means "white," but I and the poster see it as meaning non-activist women. what do age of consent laws mean to you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I did read it. But apparently in your race-addled mind, regular means "white," but I and the poster see it as meaning non-activist women. maybe you should read
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Republicans riding to the whitehouse based on getting enough working class rust belt voters to believe that they and the Republican party are and always have been allies even though that's completely lol and meanwhile you guys are like "you aren't educated in white privilege theory? Get out you have never been an ally". Is it like a belief that first you assemble the purest of the pure into the purest political movement of all time and then win everything by shear wonderful purity? Because that doesn't actually work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Republicans riding to the whitehouse based on getting enough working class rust belt voters to believe that they and the Republican party are and always have been allies even though that's completely lol and meanwhile you guys are like "you aren't educated in white privilege theory? Get out you have never been an ally". do you feel strong punching down that straw feminist
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I did read it. But apparently in your race-addled mind, regular means "white," but I and the poster see it as meaning non-activist women. Um, that post kind of clearly distinguishes regular women as women who don't "understand black issues" which implies that they aren't black (since I'd imagine that black people understand black issues, what with being black and all).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I did read it. But apparently in your race-addled mind, regular means "white," but I and the poster see it as meaning non-activist women. I did mean it as non-activist women. In the example of the Women's March on Washington it is the women who are being told "Oh you're scared now? I've been scared my whole life. You can come maybe if you shut up and listen and check your privilege constantly". It's not a race thing or a cis thing. For the first time masses of women without the class or educational ties to activism are willing to participate in the movement and instead of seeing this as a uniquely wonderful opportunity, some are seeing them as fresh targets for call-outs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Um, that post kind of clearly distinguishes regular women as women who don't "understand black issues" which implies that they aren't black (since I'd imagine that black people understand black issues, what with being black and all). It should go without saying that I'm talking about everyone and not POC specifically. The fact that we're even having this discussion indicates to me that we're all pretty well educated or at least academically minded. Do any of you have any idea how loving esoteric a debate about normative language is? How specialized a topic that really is, in the grand scheme of things? It was pretty obvious what Frosted Flake was getting at from the broader context in which he used "regular", but let's instead disregard the point he was trying to make because he committed a word crime and it's extremely important to litigate that right now. And lets say it actually is extremely important to litigate that right now -- why is the tone "don't you know your theory you loving idiot? you moron?? are you even the right kind of person to talk about this???" As though he kicked down the door of a black feminist meeting to start mansplaining to them, or as though seeing what's problematic about the use of the word "regular" in that sentence is somehow the norm or to be expected. This is exactly what I was talking about before with the Orwell quote. How loving ironic it is that in our post-class war, IdPol-motivated Left, the litmus test for being a Good Person is how well you can perform being well-educated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I did mean it as non-activist women. In the example of the Women's March on Washington it is the women who are being told "Oh you're scared now? I've been scared my whole life. You can come maybe if you shut up and listen and check your privilege constantly". Won't somebody please stop these mean POC and/or trans straw feminists victimizing everybody???
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
This is ridiculous. Y'all are acting like minorities are rubbing their eager hands together just waiting for "regular" people to slip up so they can call them out with righteous fury. We're not. It's loving exhausting explaining poo poo to even well intentioned folks, let alone assholes like you who are painting activists as cartoonish vultures. And using the term "regular" like that is such a lovely microaggression. Don't double down on this again. Learn from this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
I guess I feel like the women I'm describing where I see the problem and want to help work on a solution, but I have a background, education and profession that means that I don't know all about critical theory. They (and I) can see that they do not like Trump, and they see an opportunity to protest him, to start participating in politics beyond (maybe) voting. Why should they know about normatively, or privilege theory or anything else before they go? Why not have a million women come, based on a really, really simple and easy to understand goal, and educate them once they are there participating? E: How could I know it was a microaggression? I used it correctly in the context and was clear about what I meant. In the future, how do you prefer "People who do not regularly participate in activism." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I guess I feel like the women I'm describing where I see the problem and want to help work on a solution, but I have a background, education and profession that means that I don't know all about critical theory. They (and I) can see that they do not like Trump, and they see an opportunity to protest him, to start participating in politics beyond (maybe) voting. This isn't a feminism theory course thing, this is a POC women and transwomen are people too thing, jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:That would depend entirely on what you mean by "understand black issues". Are we talking about embodying a lived experience of blackness, and to some extent being able to articulate what it means to be black in society versus white, or are we talking about possessing a nuanced understanding of "black issues", the causes and effects, and having a coherent understanding of the best way forward? Because the former is completely unremarkable but I don't believe any amount of melanin (or lack thereof) imbues any individual with an inborn grasp of the latter. Nor do I believe any amount of lived experience necessarily imbues someone with a sophisticated understanding of social issues. The idea that anyone intrinsically knows what's in their best interests is simply not borne out in reality. Then why even use "regular" with quotes like that? Why not just say "people who aren't involved with activism." The quotes clearly seem to indicate that the poster is trying to avoid the obvious negative implications of calling non-minorities "regular", or else they make no sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:This is ridiculous. Y'all are acting like minorities are rubbing their eager hands together just waiting for regular" people to slip up so they can call them out with righteous fury. Is there really no space to criticize the modes in which activists choose to interact with newer members of their movements or their allies? This isn't even a criticism of PoC or other minorities, I've seen people of every stripe and identity engage in this kind of behavior with people they perceive, rightly or otherwise, as not having "done the work." It's an understandable reaction when you're tired of having to debate or explain topics you've been retreading since forever, but it leads to purity policing and, for certain toxic members, the ability to use their self-perception as being more educated on matters as an excuse to abuse their peers. It's absolutely not the kind of thing you want to encourage or allow in a healthy social movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Here's a good rule: If someone is an rear end in a top hat, mentally classify them as a jerk and move on. Don't condemn an entire movement because someone hurt your feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Here's a good rule: If someone is an rear end in a top hat, mentally classify them as a jerk and move on. Don't condemn an entire movement because someone hurt your feelings. Who said anything about condemning entire movements? The point was that criticism of toxic behaviors in these movements becomes impossible when the immediate reaction becomes "why do you hate <movement>" or "don't you have better things to be doing?" I want socially liberal movements to succeed, but I think these movements could be doing a much better job of encouraging membership/allyship and curbing infighting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
A voting bloc isn't the same thing as a movement ally. Evangelicals sure as gently caress aren't Trump's allies. They believe that their god will use him as an instrument to create a protestant caliphate and then either magically rewrite his mind into a true believer or literally cast him into the fire so Cruz or Falwell jr. or somebody can rise like King David. They absolutely detest him but think he will do what they want. Even the ones who aren't bugfuck crazy with the divine intervention poo poo are single-issue voters who only care about overturning Roe v. Wade. The republican voting bloc is a collection of single-issue groups that don't care about anything else as long as they get what they want. The whole point of being an ally is that you're acting in good faith to help others. If you're not actually helping them, either because you're not acting in good faith or for any other reason, you should care and be grateful for constructive criticism and also maybe understand why oppressed people get frustrated with ineffective help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Who said anything about condemning entire movements? The point was that criticism of toxic behaviors in these movements becomes impossible when the immediate reaction becomes "why do you hate <movement>" or "don't you have better things to be doing?" I want socially liberal movements to succeed, but I think these movements could be doing a much better job of encouraging membership/allyship and curbing infighting. Can you cite specific toxic behaviors in nebulous "these movements" that aren't 100% made up by you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
I guess if one jerk participates in any mass movement, the entire movement is forever discredited because it couldn't stop that one jerk from being rude to you or not considering your hurt feelings the movement's top priority?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
I think if anything this thread shows that the dichotomy laid out in the op is false. There are a lot of different groups with a lot of material interests, goals, and ideologies some which support the "deplorables" some which support the "SJW's". There is a great difference between "is on the same side as" and "allies". Many of the "deplorable s" are supporting Trump not for his horrendous social stances but his economic policies. Despite Trumps flagrant sexism 53% of white women voted for him, i can't believe that they did so simply unaware or completely accepting of his sexist attitudes. They made a prioritization. A lovely moral decision certainly, but then again, morality does not win elections, no matter how much we wish it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 23:02
|
|