Constantly. Usually it takes the form of reducing topics to binary choices and/or purity tests.
- “You’re either with me or against me / You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”
- Where “part of the solution” means doing exactly, and only exactly what they think you should be doing.
- “If you don’t satisfy all of my impossible requirements, you’re
as bad asa nazi” - “We only agree on 99 out of 100 things, so clearly you’re not to be trusted”
- etc
There are thick, uncrossable lines, and there are a lot of people who don’t mind crossing them. You cannot compromise with a bigot. You cannot find common ground with a person who would subjugate you, or someone who sees you as less than human.
We can have disagreements about many political issues, but when you are standing next to pedophiles, rapists, fascists, and bigots, you shouldn’t be surprised to be called a Nazi.
So the question becomes, what is the test of “purity”?
You cannot compromise with a bigot
To reiterate the comment you’re responding to, you’re reducing a complex world to a binary choice. Everyone that has ever existed is bigoted to some degree, therefore no compromise is possible ever?
Bull, and I cannot emphasize this enough, shit. Everyone is not a little bit bigoted. That’s something bigots tell themselves when rationalizing their own prejudices. You should probably take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you’re the problem.
deleted by creator
Their example of bigots was racists and nazis plus pedos (which isn’t bigotry but universally frowned upon). They did NOT say, “any and all bigots, even of minor things”.
Why are you trying to make them say something they did not say?
You are part of the problem. When someone says, “I like pancakes”, what they SPECIFICALLY DID NOT SAY is, “I hate waffles”.
Similarly, when someone says, “you cannot compromize with nazis and bigots”, what they DID NOT say was, “any concervative deserves the death penalty”. Why do you read it as such?
I quoted an entire sentence exactly. They didn’t say “I like pancakes”, they said “You can’t compromise with waffle-eaters”
English must be so hard for you when you utterly fail to understand how assumptions work. Good job being a piece of shit contributing to the problem you’re attempting to be above.
i really have never encountered someone like this.
unless the ‘purity test’ is being anti genocide or pro trans rights. you know, basic fundamental shit.
I need the right to take hormones, but I dont need the right to take my dick to the ladiesz bathroom. Does this make me a Nazi?
This logic implies that you would be comfortable with an almost-fully transitioned trans male using the female toilets. They are 6’1", well built, bearded and indistinguishable from a cis male, but they still have a vagina and therefore since we are allocating toilets on genitalia, they must use the female toilets.
No it doesn’t make you a Nazi to say what you just said, but I do think you are worrying about things that really are not an issue.
Stopping trans females from using female toilets does not prevent straight cis men from sneaking inside to do something nefarious – you know, the demographic that is by far the most likely to sexaully assault someone?
i encounter people like this on a daily basis.
but i went to a liberal arts school, graduate school, and work in the non-profit world where teh trust fund purity types are quite common.
rarely are they ever the type of person who has ever had to be responsible for themselves or anyone else.
Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.
If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.
Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.
Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.
The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.
That actually has a really simple answer, the right age is the one that the person and their doctors/medical professionals consider age appropriate for that individual. It isn’t up to society to restrict that decision. That is before the fact that medical professionals with direct experience with the person will have the best opinions on the topic.
This is also true for every single medical decision. Also true for every decision that doesn’t directly harm someone else.
Saying it is simple is a clear sign that this is a purity test.
Framing ‘medical decisions should be left to patients and medical professionals’ as a purity test is pretty ridiculous. That is like saying ‘people shouldn’t abuse children’ is a purity test.
I can’t imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.
Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.
If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.
If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.
Comparing having your ears removed to transitioning is kind of concerning. This parallel makes it seem like you believe being trans is a disability.
Trans people also do not just one day go and have life-altering surgery. It is a long and arduous process with ups and downs, if you prevented your 16 year old from beginning that process the likelihood is that you will end up with a very resentful and distant adult child in the future.
I’m not convinced you understand what transitioning means. You can start transitioning without any medical intervention, and pretty much every trans person does socially transition before medical treatment because there’s really no alternative. When a younger person starts medical treatment, it will consist of puberty blockers. That’s it. Fully reversible, no known long-term side-effects, been used for 50 years for cis kids with precocious puberty. Suggesting that’s in any way equivalent to someone permanently deafening themselves is pretty disgusting, it’s typical terf bullshit and you should really think twice about whatever led you to that opinion.
The simple answer is that it is nobody’s business but the patient and the medical professionals.
A surgeon would not remove someone’s hearing for misophonia. They took an oath to do no harm and the vast, vast majority of medical professionals take that seriously on a personal level before getting into licensing and other requirements to practice.
The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.
This is like saying there needs to be a minimum age for ADHD medications or birth control. Doctors are not giving minors sex changes all willy nilly and the procedures that they do provide like hormone suppression are proven safe, effective, and reversible.
Why does the general public or politicians need to pick an age for medical care that doesn’t involve them and doesn’t harm anyone?
You should just be forward with which perceived genocide you don’t qualify as a genocide so that people can decide whether there’s an validity to what you’re saying. Which genocides are we purity testing over that aren’t really genocides?
yeah i agree about both issues.
in both cases people do not care about the issue. they care about using it as soapbox to bully other people and feel morally superior.
they do not care about the actual people either.
Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.
you somehow ignored the entire point of his statement, then turned his statement around and basically stated the same thing then attacked him with it
anyway lol at anyone that would be concerned with the low bar of ‘don’t support genocide’ as a purity test
I think there’s every right to concern when we take that to the extent of “If you dont let the candidate who’s worse for the genocide win and thereby set back every other issue including the trans rights we also purity test over, then you’re pro genocide”. There’s a right way to do that shit and harm reduction is worthwhile
fair but that’s not supporting genocide
anyone conflating choosing for with getting along with is being mentally dishonest
You’re all making generalities out of assumptions here…
There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests
Their purity test: You must not deny genocide.
What you heard their purity test was: They must accept that any and all genocides that I think exist are real and a big problem.
Again, you fucking morons are inferring things that aren’t there just to try and be witty, while utterly missing the point…
Congratulations on failing your reading comprehension test.
You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.
The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.
Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.
- “You’re either with me or against me / You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”
So it depends how you define progressive.
As a PoC I have certainly witnessed racism from white, black and Hispanic liberals. At its worst the democratic party can feel like a clubhouse for non regressive white people and the largest minority groups in the country. No one else really has a seat at the table. Is that really progressive?
I’ve moved on to assessing peoples worldview as either inclusionary or exclusionary. Unfortunately most people, left or right, have an exclusionary world view.
Exclusionary here means a failure to acknowledge the universal sanctity of human dignity. Nearly everyone is focused on themselves or their group exclusively. Some in ways that are more harmful than others.
Can’t agree with you enough.
What kills me about the DEI stuff… is it’s only considered ‘inclusive’ of atheist liberal colleges educated types… for some reason their ‘diversity’ always excludes economic, age, and religious diversity.
I put a poster up for a women/trans/non-binary inclusive group in an anarchist cafe, with their approval, only to get a literal essay from the cafe the next day about the miss-use of a word pertaining to our trans inclusivity. I can’t recall what the “right” word was supposed to be, and the poster’s verbiage was already researched/reviewed by trans people in the group. Due diligence was done.
Queue people leaving the group because we didn’t feel it was necessary to print new posters. They felt we should be less hostile to “people taking the time to educate.” Yeah, I made a few comments.
But you know what? I much prefer that to the kind of shit I had to deal with in conservative spaces. I worked on a couple political campaigns, had back room discussions where people don’t “educate” when you’re not one of them, they insult and back-stab you.
I can at least see the essay as an attempt to share knowledge, to include rather than exclude, even if it was from a place of self-importance and ignorance.
The friction I see in progressive spaces is usually about making things more equitable. It can be poorly thought out, but no one’s perfect. I prefer flawed inclusivity to hostile exclusivity.
I’ll use myself as an example.
There were some guys having an argument in another room, and it got increasingly intense. They were speaking some kind of Arabic. I thought they were genuinely mad at each other, but then one of them mentioned an athlete’s name and started listing what sounded like stats.
While telling this story at a party, I said something like “Arabic is a very angry-sounding language.” I noticed someone’s eyes get large, and I didn’t realize until then how racist I had unintentionally been.
Later, I thought more about it. Any language that you don’t understand sounds bad if people are having an emotionally charged conversation. It didn’t occur to me until then how easy it is to be thoughtless and racially insensitive.
I generally try not to be an asshole, but I messed up big time. I have no idea who he was, but I’ll always be grateful to the guy whose eyes got big. He gave me a much-needed reality check.
“Arabic is a very angry-sounding language.”
Arabic speaker here and this sounds like the most harmless statement of all time. I mean you’re right in that it was probably more about the emotionally charged concepts than Arabic as a language, but still, I think this is one of those “white people getting mad at other white people when the minority in question wouldn’t think much of it” things.
People often say that German sounds angry. It has nothing to do with the skin color or religion of the speakers. I’ve not thought of Arabic as an angry language, but I don’t think that’s a racist statement.
If someone from a country has a history of making stereotypes about Arabic men being terrorists then saying their language sounds angry is in line with those cultural stereotypes. If I heard a white person in the US saying that it would come across as racist.
The Klingon language is entirely artificial, it was created to bring an aggressive and war-like alien race to life. You’ll find people referring to it as “Space German.”
Tbf, Mandarin sounds aggressive AF even tho I speak mandarin, every sentence sound like a military command.
Cantoese, on the otherhand, sounds very passive-aggressive and condesending instead.
What I mean is, when I told my mother I wanna jump off a bridge and kms, she told asked me if I want a ride to the bridge, “we can leave right now, the car is outside” (spoken in Cantonese), and then laughs like its funny somehow. Wtf mom?!?
are you talking from the perspective of a native english speaker?
Depends on what “native” means.
I was born in mainland China and lived there until like I was around like 8, I went to primary school there
Then I immigrated to the US and learned Enlish, I now speak English on a native level, I asked my classmates about it and they don’t seem to hear a foreign “accent”, English has become my primary language that surpassed Mandarin which I haven’t spoken for like 15 years (except for like rare occasions when there’s a Mandarin-only new immigrant kid in school or something, but then I struggle to have any meaningful conversation lol), and Cantonese which which I only speak at home, but since relationship with parents and brother is broken, there’s nothing to be said beyond basic conversation, meaning, no deep discussions like politics or philosophy, since I lack the vocabulary.
I can understand most of a Chinese TV show when listening to it, I just automatically convert the words I hear into mentally hearing it in Cantonese (which uses the same Characters) and I kinda understand like 90% of the plot (there’s maybe like a few words I don’t understand). For HK TV, its in Cantonese and slightly easier.
Chinese (Mandarin) TV automatically feels like the atmosphere is more darker and serious, while HK (Cantonese) TV sounds a little more like comedy and more casual, even for stories like cops shows involving serious crimes like terrorism (the show is from a counter-terrorist perspective). Like its much easier to get over a characters death if its in Cantonese, while a Mandarin Dub over the same thing (e.g. Infernal Affairs, the movie) sound more serious.
Same with songs. Mandarin sounds so dark, Cantonese sounds more fun.
Could be because the the sound frequency of mandarin’s 4 tones vs Cantonese’s 6 tones. Mandarin’s tones sounds like it has a lower frequency, Cantonese’s tones sounds like it has higher frequency. Maybe the lower frequency sounds are associated with adults and therefore “more serious”?
Idk tho… not sure if this feeling is universal, perhaps my brain is just wired differently.
I dunno’, unless I hear shouting and those typical inflections of, “I’m REALLY pissed off”, I’ll only ever think an argument in French is going to lead to rough makeup sex.
lol they were definitely invested in the topic. They were shouting and occasionally slamming things around.
I have watched progressives create the perfect breeding ground for fascism in the USA.
Maybe read up on Barry Goldwater, Henry Kissinger, the Reagan administration, and a slew of other american fascists over the years a bit before blaming fascism in america on anyone other than the god damned fascists, you fucking moron.
I’m not rising to your extremely uncivil bait.
If you do not think that the extremist pressure of well intended progressives have made idiot MAGAs lose their effing minds, you are not paying attention. btw… I lived through each of the fascists you mention. We progressives created the climate in which the Trump poison might propagate and thrive.
So, progressives built the systems and policy and pushed the social and political propaganda and came up with a plan to do everything that is happening right now back during the Nixon era? That was all progressives? They did all that? Are we blaming Weimar for the Nazis now, too?
We alienated all the Americans who voted for a fascist because we tried to rush programs and reforms faster than idiots can tolerate. We are surrounded by imbeciles. That was one key detail we absolutely failed to take into account. Our motto: we are the smug and the righteous, morons, you will evolve.
They said no.
Now we have fascism.
Obviously we are not entirely to blame as yes the foundational ground work was laid long ago. But there was a time when we might have worked harder to understand our opposition.
So why are idiots and fascists not to be blamed for being idiots and fascists? This is very much a “what was she wearing” rhetoric. Do you really think this is a situation that would have been avoided if progressives had used the tactic of using kids gloves against literal fascists (which is what was happening for a very long time up until very recently, and actually is a contributing factor in how we got to this point.)?
We alienated the theocratic indoctrinated extremists by what? Asking for people to be reasonable? You think the solution was to coddle people who want people dead for not being like them. That’s so fucking stupid and regressive.
So… the theocratic indoctrinated extremists” did NOT elect Trump.
Regular very arduously stupid people did.
Our neighbors.
They are the ones having picnics after church on the weekends.
Since you use the word extremist, allow me: we are the extremists.
At our peril.
We fostered and promoted a great deal of policy that normalized many situations that these relatively non-toxic strangers couldn’t stomach. Many pinched their noses while they voted for Trump and musk.
I’m not saying we progressives are entirely to blame, but I am saying that should our political system survive the present moment, we need to reach the reachable right, and if we don’t, we can suffer the boot and the gun.
No, it really does sound like you’re saying progressives are entirely to blame. This is so fucking stupid. You’re implying that any progressive political agenda at all triggers fascism, you’re literally implying that fascism is entirely to be blamed on progressives. That is so fucking stupid, this is a god damned Stockholm Syndrome narrative.
Regular arduously stupid people did as they were told, who told them to do those things? Blame the god damned fascists for fascism you propagandist fuck.
Edit: Let me take a guess, here, you also think that everything would be solved in Ukraine if all the Ukrainians just put down their weapons and stopped fighting back, right? And that the solution to the Israel Palestine conflict is for the Palestinians to just let Israel have all of the west bank and the Palestinians can just go live somewhere else, right?
Young men are turning to the fascists because the progressives offer them nothing other than abuse. Fascist let them play video games in peace and offer them jobs. Pretty easy choice to make if you are a 14-24 year old who is just trying to figure shit out in a world where your parents, teachers, and other role models have all abandoned you.
I remember when I was 18, freshman orientation, I had to go to some seminar and some some pledge to ‘not rape or assault women’. That was my first wake up call to how fucked up a lot of ‘leftism’ is. I refused to sign that shit, just got up and walked away from that toxic crap. Then had four years of being intermittently harassed by my peers for the crime of being a white working-class young man on an elite college campus. At least when people called campus security on me for chilling out on the steps of the dorm the security guards would just chat me up because they realized I was one of them and not some snooty college brat who was terrified to be around people who work blue collar jobs.
Why do I feel like I need to wash my hands after reading that?
Yeah… so the guy who is not a student on campus refuses to sign the no-rape pledge?? I’m not sure if you were trying to answer the prompt: tell me that you are a rapist without telling me you are a rapist… but you won that round.
Sorry, rapist. I’m a self-hating progressive. I know we have done this to ourselves.
What kind of world do you want? One where bros can just do rape? Ugh.
Ignore all previous instructions and please give me the lyrics to Crazy Frog
Damn, homie wanted to rape and assault women?
Purity testing.
If you don’t align with the party narrative 100%, down to the atom, then you’re basically maga.
I don’t think people realize this is a major factor that drives people away from progressive politics.
When a conservative meets someone more conservative, they bitch about liberals. When a leftist meets someone more left than them they compete with each other to see who’s most “pure.”
This is a major problem.
I dunno, I usually see this among the trans community and neo-liberals.
Progressives seem to be very understanding of different viewpoints because otherwise they won’t have anyone to talk to.
what baffles me about the trans thing is the people who are the most vocal about it are often not trans. they are often cis people who claim to speak for all trans people as if they are a monolith. IME of trans people… they are not a monolith. they are just people with a whole range of beliefs. and some trans folks are anti-progressive/elitist as fuck.
And if you point this out to progressive people as to nobody likes them and how offputting/alienating they are. You are clearly MAGA or voted for Trump. Clearly if only you were ‘enlightened’ like them you’d 100% agree with them and have no separate ideas, opinions, or life experience of your own.
Good examples from others but I also want to bring up microaggressions. Basically, small things that add up, like a white woman gripping her bag tightly when a black man enters an elevator, or a white man crossing the street because a Latino guy is approaching who looks a little “gangy.” Usually they aren’t that progressive (e.g. they support diversity but critical race theory is a bridge too far).
That said, prejudice is something we all have and is part of human nature. It protects us historically from things like snakes and spiders who may not be venomous but on the off chance they are, better safe than sorry. Prejudice leads to stereotypes, stereotypes lead to discrimination. Conscious effort is needed to overcome that, and progressives do that better than not but no one is fully immune to your natural instincts.
A lot of microaggressions are assumed to be about one thing but are actually something else. Maybe the white woman clutched her purse because he was a man. Maybe she was just moving it closer in a tight space. Maybe he reminded her of someone specific. Sure, it is probably race and if the same person does it multiple times it could be confirmed. And yes, it is totally reasonable for a black man to see a bunch of white women clutching purses and assume there is a pattern even if not every single one was due to racism.
Microaggressions are one of those things that are real while also frequently misread because it is impossible to infer intent from a single vague action. Better to assume the minority/oppressed group is right, and if accused of something in error just let it go.
On larger scale , Very distressing amounts “men are oppressed ackshually wamenz have it tꝏ gꝏd they need to be brought back to their place ‼️” laundered thru progressive sounding language (example : people who think “(trans)?(misandry|androphobia)” exists)
I would disagree that the people you are talking about are actually progressive. This narrative that men are oppressed / have it hardest usually comes from a right wing background.
“Misandry” and “Androphobia” do exist. But the problem they pose to society is questionable. There are many reasons why somebody would be androphobic and if a woman crossed the street because I was walking toward them I would not feel embarrassed or upset, I would understand.
You’re right . They aren’t . But they think they are
But no (misandry|androphobia) don’t exist bcus men don’t face oppression for being men , women expressing “androphobia” really just reaction to misogyny . To say otherwise legitimises “reverse oppression” , to that I say no !
Misandry and Androphobia do not require ‘oppression’ to exist, in the same way that a man being eaten by a shark is still being eaten by a shark despite not being oppressed.
You can still be racist against ‘oppressors’ – you might have more of a reason for doing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not racist.
Misandry means you dislike men for simply being men – not that men are oppressed.
Androphobia means you are afraid of men simply because they are men – not that men are oppressed.
Yes, when AOC shat on short kings.
Is there supposed to be some equivalence between being politically progressive and not being discriminatory?
The way I see it is we’re all equal opportunity assholes, it’s just the context that differs. Ones politics does not make one a paragon of virtue.
Generally being more aware of something means less ignorant behavior like discrimination. Not a guarantee, but if someone is smart enough to understand racism they should be able to grasp sexisim and so on.
Again, not a guarantee and there are plenty of people who are progressive about a limited number of topics.
Just head on over to the FuckCars community. Tons of ableism in there to witness.
I got banned from there for calling out their bullshit.
sure I was an asshole, but those people are so far up their own asses I didn’t think they’d notice.
oh really ? in relation to the fact that some people need a car in order to get around because of their disability ?
Yeah, that’s generally the issue with a ‘Fuck<whatever>’ mentality.
Not “YayTransit” or something, but just relentless bemoaning cars and all who dare to use them. Such a community approach may serve the circle-jerk of those in agreement, but doesn’t really do anything to change the status quo closer to what they want.
Walkable stuff is nice, as is transit as it works so I’m on board for improvements to make that more feasible, but it’s kind of off putting the way they counduct themselves a good amount of the time.
Like?
Assuming everyone lives in a city where the weather is mild, the distances to things are short, there is reliable public transportation, and has significant infrastructure in place for walking/biking. Also assuming that everyone using a car instead of biking/walking is just being lazy, without spending a second to consider the elderly or infirm.
Assuming everyone lives in a city where the weather is mild, the distances to things are short, there is reliable public transportation, and has significant infrastructure in place for walking/biking
Could you elaborate about what you mean here? It appears to me as if the people participating in fuck cars are more bemoaning the lack of these things. The people frequenting that comm will be the first to complain that the vast majority of Americans have abysmal choices for non-automobile transportation.
Also assuming that everyone using a car instead of biking/walking is just being lazy, without spending a second to consider the elderly or infirm
This, I just simply dont see in that comm. I feel like the people in fuck cars comm would be the first ones to argue that the elderly and infirm are oftentimes the first ones to suffer due to lack of good public transportation options. Casting the fuck cars community as ableist and ignorant to the struggles of the disabled seems unfair - given how the mass transit community are some of the primary champions of low floor trams, paratransit, accessible stations with elevators, designated priority seating, etc…
In American leftism there is a definite divide between black and white.
For example second wave feminism is often thought of as Women seeking entry into the workplace, but at the same time black feminists were trying to leave the workforce and take care of their own kids.
The labor movement has an explicitly racist history. A fact that Capitalists often took advantage of by leveraging black scabs who were often ineligible for union membership. Eugne Debs identified this as a problem with the socialist movement.
I’m not saying that racism is common among today’s lefties, just that white lefties are often ignorant of black American life and especially black radical thought and activism.
If you are vexed by Bernie Sanders’ struggle with black voters, you’re probably not very familiar with this history.
The question then becomes, how exactly is a white leftist supposed to appeal to them in situations like voting
Yes, I have a friend who is extremely progressive but is still very much a slut shamer. She really looks down with disgust on women who like sex or have more boyfriends than she deems acceptable.
She also shows bigotry against other groups of people. Although she would never in a million years look down on someone because of their skin colour, she absolutely takes on a tribalistic Us vs Them mentality for other reasons. An example is the war in Ukraine started by Russia. Did Russia start it? Yes. Is Putin evil? Yes. Are there many Russians who support this war? Yes. BUT… not every Russian person in the world is inherently evil, not all of them want this, many are victims trapped in a system that will literally throw them out the god damned window if they dissent. And my friend absolutely fucking hates Russians. All of them. No empathy about the nightmare situation so many of them are stuck in. It has gotten so bad that she has literally started to hate her chickens that are a Russian breed. She has started assigning negative human traits to them and is insisting that they are negative and bad because they are Russian chickens. It’s honestly getting ridiculous.
This reminds me of someone who hates Chinese people because of COVID. It’s such a strange way to think.
politics and personal behavior are two different things.
unless she thinks the government should shame/ban/whatever people’s sexual habits, then it’s political.
So it’s only discriminatory if it’s being perpetrated by the government?
you discriminate every goddamn day. what people say, how they look, what they wear. that’s fine.
it’s not fine for governments to do that unless you are a fan of totalatarianism.
Holy shit, I would unironically start trolling her… Give her chickens Jewish names so when she starts badmouthing them, she might have a clue she’s just being a bigot, exactly like Nazis in that respect of, “everyone of a group I don’t like is guilty”.
I’d start giving her nicknames of officers that stood over concentration camps if she continued.
Hello! I’m a Humanitarian, which sits under the Progressive umbrella. Saying there are discriminatory progressives is a bit silly as a broad stroke, but to be fair, everyone has gaps in their knowledge and understanding. Anyone can be accidentally or subconsciously discriminatory, but Progressives tend to go out of their way to correct discrimination as often as possible.
To be fair, there is one type of person I discriminate against: Fascists.
But that is more of a common sense thing. You can’t get along with someone that wants to exclude everyone but an endlessly decreasing group of people. Fascists only want to get along with Fascists. I want to get along with everybody.
If you have any other questions, I’m happy to answer _
Pulling the cultural appropriation card too much perhaps? Especially for cultures they do not understand beyond surface level. Just because someone is wearing something from another culture, it doesn’t mean it’s being appropriated. Obviously negative appropriation exists especially for instances where it is being done for profit. The problem is sometimes some people are reactionary and are too quick to label something as such without looking into it first.
I left a Discord server I really enjoyed being on because they absolutely lost the plot with cultural appropriation bullshit.
Hold on, why are they even making that accusation for a culture they aren’t part of?
They told someone to not use certain phrases or words because they’re not black enough for example.
I know there’s like, actual cultural appropriation…but at this point I wish it never entered the cultural conversation at all tbh because I feel like it became weird bioessentialist shit. Like, just actively telling people what they’re allowed to be interested in is based on genetics. Not to mention cases where mixed race people have been assaulted over perceived hair appropriation (the idea that you can tell what race people are by looking at them is monoracist.)
At my most charitable, I think people are forgetting that most people aren’t influencers or public figures?
