|
Yeah, liberalism as an ideology was literally founded because British and Dutch colonizers needed an excuse to enslave and/or genocide indigenous peoples, and even after social liberalism was invented the tendency is that liberals may wax lyrical about minority rights in theory but in practice seem to wait until someone else has done the heavy lifting WRT making any given minority socially acceptable and then they jump on the bandwagon while claiming all the credit.
Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Dec 20, 2019 |
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Locke’s relationship with slavery was complex; IIRC current thinking is that after being involved with it in America he eventually turned against it because he couldn’t reconcile it with his philosophy (cf his first and second treatise and work in later life on the Virginia constitution); later, Mill also concluded that slavery was something that no person could validly consent to. Early modern slavery isn’t a good example of a minority rights issue though because it’s its own huge thing, tied into a lot of other social and political issues. As to when mainstream liberalism adopted minority rights / progressive identity politics as a core issue, I guess in the 1960s with the civil rights movement in the US and again as a reaction against the social conservatism of Reagan/Thatcher? I mean, socialist ideals get you to the same place but with a plan for actually fixing marginalisation of minority groups, so it’s academic. No-one is suggesting going back to classical liberalism. But there is absolutely a large group of people who aren’t on the left but throw themselves energetically into socially progressive causes and it seems odd to pretend they don’t exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:09
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Locke’s relationship with slavery was complex; IIRC current thinking is that after being involved with it in America he eventually turned against it because he couldn’t reconcile it with his philosophy (cf his first and second treatise and work in later life on the Virginia constitution); later, Mill also concluded that slavery was something that no person could validly consent to. Even Nozick ended up not liking his original ideas, but that doesn't mean it didn't spawn a whole movement based on those guys originally justifying it. There are people who aren't leftists and throw themselves into socially progressive movements, but sometimes it's at the expense of other minorities (like white feminism) or they say they don't like racial inequality while tacitly supporting it by supporting capitalist ideas which keep the poor perpetually under the boot. I genuinely believe it mostly happens through ignorance and not malice, but that's a really bad excuse if they actually cared beyond platitudes. Or sometimes they just don't give a poo poo about minorities other than themselves or even within their own group (see Israeli LGBT+ activists who support the occupation). It's better than nothing, I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Locke’s relationship with slavery was complex; IIRC current thinking is that after being involved with it in America he eventually turned against it because he couldn’t reconcile it with his philosophy (cf his first and second treatise and work in later life on the Virginia constitution) Locke was a literal slaver, ya dingus. I'm not surprised that later liberals have tried to whitewash him, but you shouldn't accept their bullshit as fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:21
|
|
|
Re sex and gender. For personal reasons it's something I've spent a significant amount of time thinking about outside the hot takes of Twitter and the news cycle. So as I understand it the reason real TERFs (as opposed to transphobes in feminist hats) get so frustrated with the account of gender as purely performative is that second wave / radical feminism had as its core principle the idea that gender has a material basis in the lived experience of women. This is also why many old school Marxist feminists tend to lean TERF. What this means is that the body is a key battleground in the feminist struggle: understanding the struggle necessarily means having experienced what it's like to live in a female body. Now this is obviously why some RadFems reject support from men: they see men the same way as this thread sees liberals, as privileged fucks who don't / can't ever be reliable in the fight against patriarchy. It's not a massive leap from here to the "never ever let transwomen in women's bathrooms" position. The issue with this is, as others have pointed out, it's essentialist because it posits there are only two biological sexes, which just ain't the case.  However, there's still a good case for grounding our understanding of gender in lived experience, including as that relates to the body, and especially if we want to do a materialist analysis. What a consistent extension of the radical feminist position would be is to acknowledge the spectrum of biological difference between people and recognise that only a limited subset of these ('males') tend to be gendered as men by our society, then look at the impacts of that. This would get you closer to queer theory and would let you start talking about the lived experiences of intersex people (for example) and trans people (cf gender dysphoria and biology) as being valid parts of the feminist struggle. The main issue with purely performative accounts of gender, which seem to be the norm on the left at the moment, is that they do neglect the biological aspects of people's experience of gender, which seem to be fairly key to understanding a materialist account, or even a postmodern account like Foucault's where power and the body are directly related. Basically, going down a purely performative route makes you either an idealist or a social constructionist with regard to gender, and that makes it hard to tie gender into a broader Marxist framework.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
Does anyone know if Russia still gives it a parcel of land and Pat's you to farm it? Asking for Mr Blair
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:47
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:Re sex and gender. For personal reasons it's something I've spent a significant amount of time thinking about outside the hot takes of Twitter and the news cycle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:but at its root always falling back on oppression being based on biology rather than sociology, i.e. period poverty, birth control, abortion rights, disproportionate labor of childbirth etc. that's where i get confused and usually back out of engaging cos i want to be a friend to all but i also can't dismiss when people who were born women say they *do* face a unique kind of oppression and i truly don't know what i am supposed to say in response to that, because it's correct. whole thing is a minefield. scared i will get called terf just for posting this even tho it isn't terfy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
but then i guess everyone faces unique oppression which is the very thing that unites us, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Christ. "casually eating surstromming" is not a sentence that should be humanly possible yet there it is Please do not eat surströmming. It's disgusting rotten fish and even worse, it's swedish
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Locke was a literal slaver, ya dingus. I'm not surprised that later liberals have tried to whitewash him, but you shouldn't accept their bullshit as fact. You’re probably right, I’m mostly half remembering politics class in sixth form tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:but at its root always falling back on oppression being based on biology rather than sociology, i.e. period poverty, birth control, abortion rights, disproportionate labor of childbirth etc. while dismissing the demonization of femininty and transphobic attacks as "violent men attacking other men". Yeah this seems like a bad take because surely sex and gender exist at that intersection of sociology and biology: else the radical feminist approach would be incomprehensible. Saying that it's only biology is doing what the reactionaries do, which is label their beliefs as immutable and universal truth without ever identifying that there might be reasons other than them being perfectly rational for holding those beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:38
|
|
|
Back onto good personal news, I got an offer for my first job before graduating, and it's actually doing some good in the world as opposed to working for souless profit, so that's good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:that's where i get confused and usually back out of engaging cos i want to be a friend to all but i also can't dismiss when people who were born women say they *do* face a unique kind of oppression and i truly don't know what i am supposed to say in response to that, because it's correct. whole thing is a minefield. scared i will get called terf just for posting this even tho it isn't terfy. If you can understand how being excluded from 'whiteness' can affect a BAME woman in ways that it doesn't affect a BAME man and in ways that it doesn't affect a white woman then you're over halfway there to understanding how both cisfemale biology and social femininity are vectors for oppression. Which may explain why a lot of TERFs are extremely White Feminists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Or sometimes they just don't give a poo poo about minorities other than themselves or even within their own group (see Israeli LGBT+ activists who support the occupation). It's better than nothing, I suppose? I imagine that part of the problem with Israeli XYZ supporting occupation, at least officially, is that if they don't they get targeted by the government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:No-one is suggesting going back to classical liberalism. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Please do not eat surströmming. It's disgusting rotten fish and even worse, it's swedish Please don't fall into the trap of imagining that because you're a nice piece of fish you'll be okay. As Sebastian says, even pet fish are not guaranteed safety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC_mV1IpjWA&t=68s
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:59
|
|
|
Also I'm feeling smug atm cuz I got Snopes to call JKR a transphobe https://twitter.com/danmacg/status/1207797912446668800
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:03
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Christ. "casually eating surstromming" is not a sentence that should be humanly possible yet there it is How about "casually pouring the surstromming juice into his glass and chugging it"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:04
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:just realised most of the PLP will be fine with the boundry changes. controlled opposition, guaranteed job for life, then a nice post-parliamentary job as a consultant for some think tank set up by a saudi oil scion to launder his arms and child trafficking money. the most they'll have to do is pop up on twitter or newsnight every now and again to explain why we need to keep arming jihadis in syria or wherever the next imperial war is happening. probably catalania at this rate. as long as they can perform outrage they're golden. this is everything they ever wanted, no wonder they're delighted about the result. It matters because this country is staggeringly unprepared for any sort of revolution, it couldn't even handle a basic general strike, gently caress, even solidarity/sympathy strikes are beyond the current consciousness of the British people. So parliamentary road is all we have that is even vaguely close to realistic in the short-term. It's far from ideal but if we give up then we'd be as well giving up on life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
I haven't got caught up on t'thread but intrigue in my clp. I'm pretty much guaranteed to be the first chief poof in chelmsford. I also have to debate, in writing my opponents who have showed up out of no where in writing. I also have to 0rove I'm gay, and I'm looking forward to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
 Are they going to bring one of those machines in from Canada?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:30
|
|
|
Larry Elliott has a good article here about how Labour remainers have to admit the argument is lost and now build a positive case for change outside the EU https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/20/labour-embrace-progressive-brexit-tories-interventionist His key point is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the way people think about the economy, effectively ending the dominance of austerity politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:31
|
|
|
How does one prove one's gay, at any rate? Let alone why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:32
|
|
|
Larry Elliott would be more convincing if he hadn’t been a Lexiter from day one who is somehow unable to articulate as an economist how we would be better off outside the EU but we definitely would take his word for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Larry Elliott would be more convincing if he hadn’t been a Lexiter from day one who is somehow unable to articulate as an economist how we would be better off outside the EU but we definitely would take his word for it. A fair complaint but his ending paras are something to consider: quote:So Labour’s remainers face a choice. Option one is to move straight from supporting a second referendum to arguing for rejoining the EU. This is an entirely negative strategy and relies on UK voters looking at the dismal growth across the Channel and saying: “We want what they are having.” It seems a tad unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
Re terfs: if you hang out in terf online groups for long enough you’ll see their ideology is based both on gender being completely unimportant (you don’t need to transition! You can wear whatever clothes you want and behave however you want as any sex!) and also incredibly important (it’s an absolute outrage and total oppression if a man wants to enter a women’s group, men wearing makeup is ‘appropriating’ women’s culture, being female is a totally unique experience no man can ever understand). This is all a nonsensical facade and underneath it is the real reason, which is that they find the image of men in dresses (or even masculine women in dresses, sometimes) viscerally disgusting and sexually repulsive I don’t bother trying to engage with arguments about oppression on biological sex etc after realising this. Like with Nazis the arguments are almost always an attempt to justify an irrational hatred which you cannot combat with logic
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It matters because this country is staggeringly unprepared for any sort of revolution, it couldn't even handle a basic general strike, gently caress, even solidarity/sympathy strikes are beyond the current consciousness of the British people. So parliamentary road is all we have that is even vaguely close to realistic in the short-term. It's far from ideal but if we give up then we'd be as well giving up on life. The parliamentary approach combines well with extraparliamentary action and (imo) is the way that real gains for the working class have historically been made. You have hardcore groups striking and generally making violent noises, and a parliamentary group going 'well wouldn't it be a shame if this spun out of control, here are some reforms to consider that might put a lid on this'. A parliamentary group by itself will just be ignored, and extraparliamentary groups without political support will just be repressed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:Re terfs: if you hang out in terf online groups for long enough you’ll see their ideology is based both on gender being completely unimportant (you don’t need to transition! You can wear whatever clothes you want and behave however you want as any sex!) and also incredibly important (it’s an absolute outrage and total oppression if a man wants to enter a women’s group, men wearing makeup is ‘appropriating’ women’s culture, being female is a totally unique experience no man can ever understand). This is all a nonsensical facade and underneath it is the real reason, which is that they find the image of men in dresses (or even masculine women in dresses, sometimes) viscerally disgusting and sexually repulsive At the core of any transphobia is the belief is that trans women are men and trans men are women. If you dig long enough you'll always find it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:The parliamentary approach combines well with extraparliamentary action and (imo) is the way that real gains for the working class have historically been made. You have hardcore groups striking and generally making violent noises, and a parliamentary group going 'well wouldn't it be a shame if this spun out of control, here are some reforms to consider that might put a lid on this'.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:Re terfs: if you hang out in terf online groups for long enough you’ll see their ideology is based both on gender being completely unimportant (you don’t need to transition! You can wear whatever clothes you want and behave however you want as any sex!) and also incredibly important (it’s an absolute outrage and total oppression if a man wants to enter a women’s group, men wearing makeup is ‘appropriating’ women’s culture, being female is a totally unique experience no man can ever understand). This is all a nonsensical facade and underneath it is the real reason, which is that they find the image of men in dresses (or even masculine women in dresses, sometimes) viscerally disgusting and sexually repulsive Yeah it sounds like in common with all online discussions, radfem online is a cartoonish parody of the high points of academic and popular radical feminism in the 70s. Kind of like how the Internet probably contributed to libertarian discourse moving from "capitalism has good points in raising living standards but needs some safety net to catch those at the bottom" to "where we're going, we don't need roads, only Bitcoin". E: Almost like The Internet Makes You Stupid or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
Rarity posted:At the core of any transphobia is the belief is that trans women are men and trans men are women. If you dig long enough you'll always find it. Ah yeah sorry, where I’ve put “men” in my post read it as, you know, “”””men””””. I.e. anyone they’ve decided is a man, whether that be a trans woman, a masculine-looking or sounding cis woman, an anonymous poster online, whatever. They genuinely believe they have some kind of sex radar that can distinguish between men and women with 100% accuracy. They won’t answer questions about what they would call someone who is 100% visually male but has, unknown to them, female chromosomes. They’ll just downvote and ignore or say that it’s impossible and their magic sex detector would still work, somehow (I’ve tried multiple times to get a real answer lmao) e: oh and a lot of them seem to be super, super salty about the idea that trans women enjoy being women, because they’re convinced being female is an awful oppressive experience, and if you don’t hate being a woman you’re clearly not a real one Prism Mirror Lens fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Dec 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
It's not every day you discover that you're owed a five figure sum by the Queen, but that's been the highlight of my working day so far. (Not me personally, my employer, but still.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
My favourite dumbass internet transphobe opinion is "Why would a man want to become a woman and give up all the benefits that come with being the dominant gender"
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
lmao https://twitter.com/pastachips/status/1207979079200317442
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
Bemused Observer posted:How does one prove one's gay, at any rate? Let alone why? Penile plethysmography. Not as much fun as sounding I guess, but at least you get somebody fondling your wang
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:Yeah it sounds like in common with all online discussions, radfem online is a cartoonish parody of the high points of academic and popular radical feminism in the 70s. Kind of like how the Internet probably contributed to libertarian discourse moving from "capitalism has good points in raising living standards but needs some safety net to catch those at the bottom" to "where we're going, we don't need roads, only Bitcoin". I do think there's some merit to the radfem idea that we ridiculously over-gender kids in modernity and if they were raised fairly neutral until at least the point where they could speak words and articulate basic concepts we might have a healthier social idea of gender, but I don't think trans people would just stop existing in that case and we need to be far less poo poo to currently existing people in our actual society while moving towards that. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's not every day you discover that you're owed a five figure sum by the Queen, but that's been the highlight of my working day so far. One misplaced it down the back of one of one's antique sofas (one is so glad that they were saved during the French Revolution - beautiful pieces of opulent artwork, terrible shame that the uppity commoners saw fit to destroy so much of the glory of royal achievement). Edit: One of One is a royalist character from the Star Warts, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Penile plethysmography. Not as much fun as sounding I guess, but at least you get somebody fondling your wang quote:A phallometric study indicated that men who are more homophobic show greater penile arousal to stimuli depicting gay sex than do less homophobic men 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
iirc that was more because it raises their blood pressure, making it an anger chub
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:39
|
|