The information is in the thread you are replying to. And no, you actually don’t, becauae what we are discussing is your paternalistic liberal response to others refusing to donate to a transphobe and then your leaning on debatebro fallacy misunderstandings when I explained what was wrong with it.
If you can’t self-criticize and adapt then just don’t respond.
Why do I need to prove a negative? Get your fallacies in order! I also recommend against relying so much on trying to identity fallacies, as we are not exactly engaging in formal modus tollens here and what I am saying to you is intended to get you to critically engage with what you are saying, not be an unassailable treatise on resistance that covers every eventuality.
Societal liberalism reinforces the status quo, or I should really say, reinforces capitalism, and that tends to mean reproducing oppressions that can be leveraged by capital. Even the existence of reactionaries who marginalize others is often in the interests of caputal. “Don’t blame the people firing you for losing your job, it must be the immigrants doing this to you! Hey, don’t complain about your life, at least you’re not [oppressed group]” These serve very practical functions for disunity among people that could otherwise find common ground against the interests of capital.
The liberal tut-tutting of what is supposedly ineffective opposition is part of this as well. It comes from op-eds from ghoulish warmongers, those complicit in genocide, and a political class invested in you not actually aligning against oppressors in any meaningful way. Notice the complete lack of action from yourself in doung anything about this transphobe. Just pushing against those who do. Ask yourself what role you are playing.
Rejecting someone that aligns with oppression is a great way to build against oppression, actually. Do you think Jewish Germans should have donated to the Nazis to build up “good faith” with them? Surely if they just acted like, “good Jews” they would have been spared, right?
This logic is typical status quo liberalism that tells you to tut-tut every oppressed group for not fighting back “the right way”. Of course, liberals have never succeeded using the methods they suggest, so this really amounts to telling the oppressed to shut up and die. This talking point is promulgated so that you and others will refuse to work in solidarity with the oppressed. Don’t let yourself be manipulated this way.
You have certainly met a trans person if you’ve met, say, 100 people. You just didn’t recognize them from their appearance or voice, either because they are closeted or because they convinced you they were cis from their appearance and voice. Presumably your country is so oppressive towards trans people that they are too afraid of being out, there are no trans events for you to attend in solidarity, or you are just making excuses for reactionary positions.
Trans visibility is not just in the United States. Out and self-identifying trans people are visible around the world, including the two largest countries, China and India. You can’t visit either imperialized county without meeting someone that is self-identifying themselves as trans. And one of those countries is run by a communist party.
These responses just sound like a reactionary unwilling to self-crit. And I don’t see much in the way of any alt accounts: the people criticizing thoss non-apologies and continued ignorant statements generally don’t have any replies.
Do open self-crit and try to learn from those who know better.
The rationale was concocted for those purposes. You may simply be repeating it because you weren’t aware of the history or context.
Having separate women’s teams at all was about access to organized sports activities because the existing men-only leagues banned them from participating. Rather than simply break down that barrier, legal and social compromises were made for women to participate but with the patriarchical addendum of only in separate leagues. Sometimes it was laws requiring women’s leagues to exist where men’s did. Sometimes it was women making their own leagues because they were excluded by men’s leagues.
The idea that women have separate leagues for “fairness” because they simply all wanted to be separate from men when competing is historical revisionism and a talking point largely concocted for the sole purposes of misogyny and transphobic exclusion, such as your comment.
Exactly.
I will consider contributing financially to Dessalines but not nutomic so long as they spread and maintain reactionary positions against trans people. To be honest I’m even on the fence about Dessalines for maintaining a public relationship with nutomic in light of this.
“Give money to a transphobe so we can have open source Reddit” doesn’t have a great ring.
The key is that once you emphasize the content, the discussion itself changes. It ia no longer abstract, just about knowledge, but is now a political education: what are the forces at work causing suffering (it is not just ignorance), how do they function, and how can we work together to address them?
The reason this us so important is that oppressive forces are mainstream and dominent and they will determine was avenues you have for, say, charity. The system will craft society such that your work provides a release valve for the suffering it causes, which can actually entrench and normalize those oppressive forces. They provide the funding, after all. They will expect to be credited for their “generosity” with ill-gotten gains and, say, a carceral system they maintain premised on punishment rather than public betterment and healing. People motivated by empathy, who are taught empathy, may get caught up in that charity system and thereby, overall, help cement the opprrssive ruling powers that create the disposession in the first place.
So, one muat be educated in correct ideas with sound analysis based on a critical study of society and its material oppressive forces. You must know how the political economic system functions if you are to understand the roots of suffering. And must then push farthee to ask how it has been challenged historically and how you might assist that process.
I see. It is honestly difficult to tell exactly what you mean. Education is, of course, essential to making change for the better, but the content of that education is just as important. Being selfless as a person on an individual can mean doing good things while actually entrenching the forces that create systemic suffering. For example, volunteering to feed people and convincing others to do the same. It would be difficult to call that a bad thing. And yet, the way it is funded tends to mean it is a way to distract from the root causes, from what impoverishes and deprives, from the destruction of community and lives. There are entire industries predicated on converting people’s empathy and desire to help each other into a tax write off and cheap PR.
So yes, there is an education problem there, but it is more challenging than teaching empathy alone. Empathy is only a basic starting point and is insufficient. One must plug into a political program that correctly analyses societal systems and directs action through an organized program intended to address those systems.
brb gonna go tell starving people to stop being so stupid
You get more phone per phone
Are you sure you want a mini PC? You will need a display. If you carry a display around with you it’s just as awkward as a laptop. If you don’t carry a display around you won’t be able to use your computer on the go. You will also have to plug into walls or buy a battery pack that outputs the tight voltage.
Supply chains for computers are opaque. You’d need to go inspect the factory yourself, basically. An alternative is to buy used, which slightly distances you from the consumption.
Personally I’d say to look into a used thinkpad. If you definitely want a mini PC, look into a used 1 liter business PC like the ThinkCentre M series. The slightly older models can be purchased on eBay for around $130.
100%! And it’s structurally ingrained, so it involves a very un-fun process of relearning certain habits that don’t feel that bad until you force doses of empathy on yourself, the latter of which I think is in the neighborhood of your experience. It means you have to criticize, forgive, and change yourself, which I personally don’t enjoy even though it’s so important.
PS happy pride!
That by not being ridiculously overtly bigoted, they have actually interrogated and rejected their own bigotry. The former is basic and mostly relies on social conditioning. The latter requires reading history and people who are criticizing things with which you may identify and therefore take very personally. The latter is not taught in school and school does not provide the tools (outside of literacy) to do so, so it’s a difficult, painful, abd regrettably rare thing to see, usually requiring sone trauma to change.
The silly appeals to fallacies and then ignoring basically everything I say is super debatebro.