This can't be. I thought he was a hyper leftist who would never invalidate the suffering of minorities 
Problem is that he pretends his opinions are facts and the only viable solution to issues.
Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Always been one of his gimmicks, and one of the reasons he gets so much pushback. He thinks his opinions are facts; the natural and only valid conclusion drawn from what he's read. If you dismiss his subjective conclusions, he paints you as someone who disregards all the factual materials itself. "You are not speaking out against me, you are speaking out against leftism itself."
Problem is that he pretends his opinions are facts and the only viable solution to issues.
Problem is that he pretends his opinions are facts and the only viable solution to issues.
you forgot to look into the mirror before typing this
Congrats, that still doesnt invalidate that terms can be used in different ways depending on the context. And using post-colonial analytical theory to argue against very clear colonialism not being colonialism is whats actually cringe-worthy here.
especially if we consider that going with your very precise narrow definition, a good chunk of early colonialist history wouldnt be considered colonialism (which your precious scientists and scholars consider to be colonialism), thats why i said you were defeating yourself anyway.
and you dont understand the conclusion or the factual materials. rinse and repeat. thats what he does on pretty much every topic lmao.
Post automatically merged:
Congrats, that still doesnt invalidate that terms can be used in different ways depending on the context. And using post-colonial analytical theory to argue against very clear colonialism not being colonialism is whats actually cringe-worthy here.
especially if we consider that going with your very precise narrow definition, a good chunk of early colonialist history wouldnt be considered colonialism (which your precious scientists and scholars consider to be colonialism), thats why i said you were defeating yourself anyway.
Post automatically merged:
and you dont understand the conclusion or the factual materials. rinse and repeat. thats what he does on pretty much every topic lmao.
Last edited:
Fighting an oppressive institution is not the same as turning disagreement into a moral hierarchy.
The problem arises when critique shifts from challenging systems to prescribing how individuals must think in order to be considered “acceptable.”
You can oppose an institution without framing dissent as a moral failure. Once disagreement is treated as proof that someone is lacking personal ethics rather than reflecting a difference in judgment, the discussion stops being about reform and becomes about categorizing people based on ideology.
The distinction here is that while criticism of institutions is vital, assigning moral value to someone because of disagreement is where the process breaks down.
I'm 80% talking about what is happening here and 20% about the outside world, since all the major issues happening in real life are probably outside the scope of this thread.
The problem arises when critique shifts from challenging systems to prescribing how individuals must think in order to be considered “acceptable.”
You can oppose an institution without framing dissent as a moral failure. Once disagreement is treated as proof that someone is lacking personal ethics rather than reflecting a difference in judgment, the discussion stops being about reform and becomes about categorizing people based on ideology.
The distinction here is that while criticism of institutions is vital, assigning moral value to someone because of disagreement is where the process breaks down.
I'm 80% talking about what is happening here and 20% about the outside world, since all the major issues happening in real life are probably outside the scope of this thread.
Last edited:
Maybe you should look for the concept called "whiteness". It will make you understand that you are caricaturing the point here.
Don't trigger me on people who write dictionnaries...
So you part where I talked about questioning 9/11 didn't register then?
What do you want me to do ? To agree with you? Tell you I love your understanding of something I know you don't? Will that make you happy? Will that make stop attack everything but the content of my rethoric?
Do you want me to tell you that I'm definitely smarter than you so you get a chance to attack me on my ego?
What do you want? I'll make one message where I agree with everything you say.
Yeah > Followed by "activists".
If you talk to [insert group] but said group is praising far rightist, I'm sorry, but that was not my point.
Can you quote that please?
I have an excuse to make if that's the case.
But Sounds to me that you are twisting something I said once again.
Inventing again?
Ok. From this point on, I will consider you hostile and manipulative. In a very toxic sense.
I never did that. You are twisting a real rethoric to apply it to a manipulation.
But instead of understanding the content of this argumentation, you are twisting it in a manipulative way as me comparing you shitting on minks and black suffering.
Frankly, you are crossing a line here with these few comments here and above. Don't make me explain to people how you tried to defend the fact that races arereal and defended someone making neonazi rethoric in the political section.
If you want to be hostile, we can both dance.
Van is lying and twisting things that really happened to fit just precisely the narrative. That's the average reddit moderator in him talking.
I did make a thread to push women's voices (which was a big error that I quickly abandoned btw, while women are completely invisibilized here, this could have been dangerous from me to put a target on their back, this was one of those cases where I was completely stupid in trying to make something good), but what he is not mentioning is how people tried to explain to me that there were no problems on this forum.
And yeah, looking at the rhetoric (although I'm not 100% sure he is not completely lying, I actually don't remember) it's very possible that I took this rhetoric and mistook it for a man trying to defend toxic masculinity in this place. I was still in my liberal phase and I still had some understanding to obtain
Again researchers* Not leftism.
That's what you miss completely. In all these pages, i'm the only one actually bringing scholars into the mix. I've always been open to the discussion and coutner argumentation BASED ON THESE WORKS but you guyz always refused.
And it's the same things with One Piece. Also in this case this is not surprising, the level of knowledge about storytelling in this forum is below zero.
Me : What you say is X, You do not seem to understand that it can't be true because Y. We can understand Y because Z and the work of Scholar/political current W in which W show why X can't be true adn why Y is more logical/ethical.
This thread: "You think your opinions are facts"
> Like I said. I'm passed the point of discussion with adults. Now i'm considering the behavior of this thread (as a group, because you all adopt the same rethoric) as cringe child-like and anti intellectual behavior.
Yeah ?
I mean if you need to explain things to kids or people like you. You need basic definitions after all..
lmao
Oh really?
So, for ex, how do you fight the result of patriarchy in institutions (let's say the fact that Women are at risk when talking about their abuse to the police-MEN) without showing how patriarchal thinking is not acceptable ?
What about an ethical failure?
Do you think that disagreement can be related to real life political or material interest?
For ex, let's say that Musk disagrees with me that Trans women are women, that he also disagrees with me that social services must be strenghtened, that he also disagrees with me that migrants are not a problem, that he also disagree with me that toxic masculinity is a problem, that I disagree with him that we should push meritocracy or technology and AI should be pushed everywhere and overcome states and frontiere, or that strong leaders should reign or that billionnaires should be seen as heroes..
Wouldn't you agree that it would be logical for me to consider his rethoric as relative to a specific conservative and libertarian rethoric.. thus pushing an ethical stance from my part based on a progressive vision of the world?
Don't trigger me on people who write dictionnaries...
So you part where I talked about questioning 9/11 didn't register then?
How could I ever be more like you, the oh so venerable and wise Logiko? 
Do you want me to tell you that I'm definitely smarter than you so you get a chance to attack me on my ego?
What do you want? I'll make one message where I agree with everything you say.
Yeah > Followed by "activists".
If you talk to [insert group] but said group is praising far rightist, I'm sorry, but that was not my point.
Can you quote that please?
I have an excuse to make if that's the case.
But Sounds to me that you are twisting something I said once again.
Inventing again?
Ok. From this point on, I will consider you hostile and manipulative. In a very toxic sense.
I never did that. You are twisting a real rethoric to apply it to a manipulation.
What I explained is that the way you treat characters in fiction, the way you view them, was relative to a vision of how you can see people in real life. In other words, if you can allow yourself to fully dehumanize a fictionnal group of people just for the fun, I believe that it would be easy for you to dehumanize real person in real life. The minks are racialized in the One Piece world. Meaning that they ARE like racialized people just like fishmen are in the story. So by dehumanizing them but not fishmen, you were allowing yourself a greateer and problematic dehumanization.
But instead of understanding the content of this argumentation, you are twisting it in a manipulative way as me comparing you shitting on minks and black suffering.
Frankly, you are crossing a line here with these few comments here and above. Don't make me explain to people how you tried to defend the fact that races arereal and defended someone making neonazi rethoric in the political section.
If you want to be hostile, we can both dance.
This can't be. I thought he was a hyper leftist who would never invalidate the suffering of minorities
I did make a thread to push women's voices (which was a big error that I quickly abandoned btw, while women are completely invisibilized here, this could have been dangerous from me to put a target on their back, this was one of those cases where I was completely stupid in trying to make something good), but what he is not mentioning is how people tried to explain to me that there were no problems on this forum.
And yeah, looking at the rhetoric (although I'm not 100% sure he is not completely lying, I actually don't remember) it's very possible that I took this rhetoric and mistook it for a man trying to defend toxic masculinity in this place. I was still in my liberal phase and I still had some understanding to obtain
Again researchers* Not leftism.
That's what you miss completely. In all these pages, i'm the only one actually bringing scholars into the mix. I've always been open to the discussion and coutner argumentation BASED ON THESE WORKS but you guyz always refused.
And it's the same things with One Piece. Also in this case this is not surprising, the level of knowledge about storytelling in this forum is below zero.
Me : What you say is X, You do not seem to understand that it can't be true because Y. We can understand Y because Z and the work of Scholar/political current W in which W show why X can't be true adn why Y is more logical/ethical.
This thread: "You think your opinions are facts"
> Like I said. I'm passed the point of discussion with adults. Now i'm considering the behavior of this thread (as a group, because you all adopt the same rethoric) as cringe child-like and anti intellectual behavior.
Yeah ?
I mean if you need to explain things to kids or people like you. You need basic definitions after all..
lmao
Oh really?
So, for ex, how do you fight the result of patriarchy in institutions (let's say the fact that Women are at risk when talking about their abuse to the police-MEN) without showing how patriarchal thinking is not acceptable ?
What about an ethical failure?
Do you think that disagreement can be related to real life political or material interest?
For ex, let's say that Musk disagrees with me that Trans women are women, that he also disagrees with me that social services must be strenghtened, that he also disagrees with me that migrants are not a problem, that he also disagree with me that toxic masculinity is a problem, that I disagree with him that we should push meritocracy or technology and AI should be pushed everywhere and overcome states and frontiere, or that strong leaders should reign or that billionnaires should be seen as heroes..
Wouldn't you agree that it would be logical for me to consider his rethoric as relative to a specific conservative and libertarian rethoric.. thus pushing an ethical stance from my part based on a progressive vision of the world?
Maybe you should look for the concept called "whiteness". It will make you understand that you are caricaturing the point here.
Don't trigger me on people who write dictionnaries...
So you part where I talked about questioning 9/11 didn't register then?
What do you want me to do ? To agree with you? Tell you I love your understanding of something I know you don't? Will that make you happy? Will that make stop attack everything but the content of my rethoric?
Do you want me to tell you that I'm definitely smarter than you so you get a chance to attack me on my ego?
What do you want? I'll make one message where I agree with everything you say.
Yeah > Followed by "activists".
If you talk to [insert group] but said group is praising far rightist, I'm sorry, but that was not my point.
Can you quote that please?
I have an excuse to make if that's the case.
But Sounds to me that you are twisting something I said once again.
Inventing again?
Ok. From this point on, I will consider you hostile and manipulative. In a very toxic sense.
I never did that. You are twisting a real rethoric to apply it to a manipulation.
But instead of understanding the content of this argumentation, you are twisting it in a manipulative way as me comparing you shitting on minks and black suffering.
Frankly, you are crossing a line here with these few comments here and above. Don't make me explain to people how you tried to defend the fact that races arereal and defended someone making neonazi rethoric in the political section.
If you want to be hostile, we can both dance.
Van is lying and twisting things that really happened to fit just precisely the narrative. That's the average reddit moderator in him talking.
I did make a thread to push women's voices (which was a big error that I quickly abandoned btw, while women are completely invisibilized here, this could have been dangerous from me to put a target on their back, this was one of those cases where I was completely stupid in trying to make something good), but what he is not mentioning is how people tried to explain to me that there were no problems on this forum.
And yeah, looking at the rhetoric (although I'm not 100% sure he is not completely lying, I actually don't remember) it's very possible that I took this rhetoric and mistook it for a man trying to defend toxic masculinity in this place. I was still in my liberal phase and I still had some understanding to obtain
Again researchers* Not leftism.
That's what you miss completely. In all these pages, i'm the only one actually bringing scholars into the mix. I've always been open to the discussion and coutner argumentation BASED ON THESE WORKS but you guyz always refused.
And it's the same things with One Piece. Also in this case this is not surprising, the level of knowledge about storytelling in this forum is below zero.
Me : What you say is X, You do not seem to understand that it can't be true because Y. We can understand Y because Z and the work of Scholar/political current W in which W show why X can't be true adn why Y is more logical/ethical.
This thread: "You think your opinions are facts"
> Like I said. I'm passed the point of discussion with adults. Now i'm considering the behavior of this thread (as a group, because you all adopt the same rethoric) as cringe child-like and anti intellectual behavior.
Yeah ?
I mean if you need to explain things to kids or people like you. You need basic definitions after all..
lmao
Oh really?
So, for ex, how do you fight the result of patriarchy in institutions (let's say the fact that Women are at risk when talking about their abuse to the police-MEN) without showing how patriarchal thinking is not acceptable ?
What about an ethical failure?
Do you think that disagreement can be related to real life political or material interest?
For ex, let's say that Musk disagrees with me that Trans women are women, that he also disagrees with me that social services must be strenghtened, that he also disagrees with me that migrants are not a problem, that he also disagree with me that toxic masculinity is a problem, that I disagree with him that we should push meritocracy or technology and AI should be pushed everywhere and overcome states and frontiere, or that strong leaders should reign or that billionnaires should be seen as heroes..
Wouldn't you agree that it would be logical for me to consider his rethoric as relative to a specific conservative and libertarian rethoric.. thus pushing an ethical stance from my part based on a progressive vision of the world?
Don't trigger me on people who write dictionnaries...
So you part where I talked about questioning 9/11 didn't register then?
What do you want me to do ? To agree with you? Tell you I love your understanding of something I know you don't? Will that make you happy? Will that make stop attack everything but the content of my rethoric?
Do you want me to tell you that I'm definitely smarter than you so you get a chance to attack me on my ego?
What do you want? I'll make one message where I agree with everything you say.
Yeah > Followed by "activists".
If you talk to [insert group] but said group is praising far rightist, I'm sorry, but that was not my point.
Can you quote that please?
I have an excuse to make if that's the case.
But Sounds to me that you are twisting something I said once again.
Inventing again?
Ok. From this point on, I will consider you hostile and manipulative. In a very toxic sense.
I never did that. You are twisting a real rethoric to apply it to a manipulation.
What I explained is that the way you treat characters in fiction, the way you view them, was relative to a vision of how you can see people in real life. In other words, if you can allow yourself to fully dehumanize a fictionnal group of people just for the fun, I believe that it would be easy for you to dehumanize real person in real life. The minks are racialized in the One Piece world. Meaning that they ARE like racialized people just like fishmen are in the story. So by dehumanizing them but not fishmen, you were allowing yourself a greateer and problematic dehumanization.
But instead of understanding the content of this argumentation, you are twisting it in a manipulative way as me comparing you shitting on minks and black suffering.
Frankly, you are crossing a line here with these few comments here and above. Don't make me explain to people how you tried to defend the fact that races arereal and defended someone making neonazi rethoric in the political section.
If you want to be hostile, we can both dance.
Van is lying and twisting things that really happened to fit just precisely the narrative. That's the average reddit moderator in him talking.
I did make a thread to push women's voices (which was a big error that I quickly abandoned btw, while women are completely invisibilized here, this could have been dangerous from me to put a target on their back, this was one of those cases where I was completely stupid in trying to make something good), but what he is not mentioning is how people tried to explain to me that there were no problems on this forum.
And yeah, looking at the rhetoric (although I'm not 100% sure he is not completely lying, I actually don't remember) it's very possible that I took this rhetoric and mistook it for a man trying to defend toxic masculinity in this place. I was still in my liberal phase and I still had some understanding to obtain
Again researchers* Not leftism.
That's what you miss completely. In all these pages, i'm the only one actually bringing scholars into the mix. I've always been open to the discussion and coutner argumentation BASED ON THESE WORKS but you guyz always refused.
And it's the same things with One Piece. Also in this case this is not surprising, the level of knowledge about storytelling in this forum is below zero.
Me : What you say is X, You do not seem to understand that it can't be true because Y. We can understand Y because Z and the work of Scholar/political current W in which W show why X can't be true adn why Y is more logical/ethical.
This thread: "You think your opinions are facts"
> Like I said. I'm passed the point of discussion with adults. Now i'm considering the behavior of this thread (as a group, because you all adopt the same rethoric) as cringe child-like and anti intellectual behavior.
Yeah ?
I mean if you need to explain things to kids or people like you. You need basic definitions after all..
lmao
Oh really?
So, for ex, how do you fight the result of patriarchy in institutions (let's say the fact that Women are at risk when talking about their abuse to the police-MEN) without showing how patriarchal thinking is not acceptable ?
What about an ethical failure?
Do you think that disagreement can be related to real life political or material interest?
For ex, let's say that Musk disagrees with me that Trans women are women, that he also disagrees with me that social services must be strenghtened, that he also disagrees with me that migrants are not a problem, that he also disagree with me that toxic masculinity is a problem, that I disagree with him that we should push meritocracy or technology and AI should be pushed everywhere and overcome states and frontiere, or that strong leaders should reign or that billionnaires should be seen as heroes..
Wouldn't you agree that it would be logical for me to consider his rethoric as relative to a specific conservative and libertarian rethoric.. thus pushing an ethical stance from my part based on a progressive vision of the world?
Also, you asking me if I need you to agree with me is so funny considering all of your posts here are you constantly begging people to agree with you and doing the most manipulative and underhanded nonsense to achieve that goal.
To show you that I'm not perfect! And that I don't want to be seen as perfect !
Everything that I've been trying to convey until now on this thread is :
"I was stupid, I learned and I'm still learning, please take example"
This is why I'm continuously mentioning how I was a conspiracy theorist before. I was dumb. In fact I was dumber and more politically lost than most people here to a potentially isolating degree and just like people here, NOTHING was able to get through
But... I was always full of dreams and highly curious.
So I listened. I checked for counter argumentations, I questioned myself.. perhaps too much at times. And that's what I'm trying to reproduce here. Because getting this forum out of toxicity means pushing people to realize that it is toxic.
This has been my goal since day one.
It might be a foolish wish, but I can't do that on my own.
Everything that I've been trying to convey until now on this thread is :
"I was stupid, I learned and I'm still learning, please take example"
This is why I'm continuously mentioning how I was a conspiracy theorist before. I was dumb. In fact I was dumber and more politically lost than most people here to a potentially isolating degree and just like people here, NOTHING was able to get through
But... I was always full of dreams and highly curious.
So I listened. I checked for counter argumentations, I questioned myself.. perhaps too much at times. And that's what I'm trying to reproduce here. Because getting this forum out of toxicity means pushing people to realize that it is toxic.
This has been my goal since day one.
It might be a foolish wish, but I can't do that on my own.
Last edited:
Extemely ironic that you of all people are saying this
Uhhh...
This is usually what people took from your "enlightenment"
See?
Lol is this supposed to be a threat or something? You mean this?
And naturally, so many except you understood the context and the point. You took it as me defending antisemitism when I did no such thing. Very ironic once again.
Uhhh...
This is usually what people took from your "enlightenment"
See?
Lol is this supposed to be a threat or something? You mean this?
Technically it is Jewmerica(and Chinamerica) give how much the US bent the knee to Israel since the 60s. Even JFK popped by the CIA for not wanting to cooperate with them and Israel. And isn't America doing massive censorship to push Israel propaganda and sending troops there to help a genocide?
Depends on context and sarcasm(and no this doesn't mean I believe in some Jewish lizard men conspiracy. It's the same as saying it's Chinamerica given how much America sucked off China). The only true ruler of America is money.
Depends on context and sarcasm(and no this doesn't mean I believe in some Jewish lizard men conspiracy. It's the same as saying it's Chinamerica given how much America sucked off China). The only true ruler of America is money.
It was supposed to be sarcasm which is why I said "techncially" and used emotes
I was trying to get context(I even put a disclaimer that I don't believe or support the "jews control the world" nonsense.
I was trying to get context(I even put a disclaimer that I don't believe or support the "jews control the world" nonsense.
See what ? There is nothing to see.
Do you believe that because a lot of people are somehow converging toward your toxic reasonning, somehow they are right in the denounciation of what is a legitimate call out of toxicity?
You forget that we are in a toxic environment where political understanding and positivety are as remote from being a general behavior as you are from being a communist. What I see here is exactly what I see everyday on this thread with you or anyone else beside those who don't care, word twisting and the complete absence of self questioning.
You confused the impact of racism and the act of racialization. One being the effect of an action, the other being the action behind the effect.
I'm not trembling out from my point here. I was right to call out the sexism and the dehumanization of the minks and Carrot as a way to belittle the character. I was comparing the behavior known as dehumanization as a tool to destroy the legitimacy of a woman from a racialized tribe in the One Piece world.
It would be a mermaid, it would be the same F thing. Wait.. maybe you are about to tell me that people actually dehumanize fishmen everyday here? Yup.. maybe .. Which would confirm my hypothesis : the way we treat people in real life is relative to the way we treat fictional characters.
People are toxic here, it's not something weird to see people being toxic with the characters.
A threat? You are kidding right? You are the one threatening me with "your close enough of reality" manipulation each time you open your mouth.
You know full well as the moderator that you are.. that we are in a place full of confusionnist and reactionnary that would not hesitate to jump on me with the snap of a finger if I were to show the SLIGHTEST sign of moral ambiguity. So you use the classic technics knows by every reactionary of the planet: Trying to make a leftist look immoral.
I've been ignoring this most of the time, reminding you here and there that you were lying and a bit manipulative, but DAMN, this is vicious. This has been your MAIN technique with me. In fact, I'm not exaggerating when I say that this has been your only technique.
This behavior, this manipulation o fyours, is the reason why you are not my ally and absolutely not an ally of leftists.
You say that you understand leftism while using far right tactics as a MODERATOR to belittle someone who already has to deal with dogpiling on a daily basis. For what reason ? Because I talk too much? Because I say to people that they don't understand leftism ?
Really - no matter if I'm right or wrong - you behavior is not acceptable. Each time you try this, you force me to write a 10 pages essay because I can't allow myself to be this type of target.
You know what you do. And now you know that I know it too.
Not this.
This:
Do you believe that because a lot of people are somehow converging toward your toxic reasonning, somehow they are right in the denounciation of what is a legitimate call out of toxicity?
You forget that we are in a toxic environment where political understanding and positivety are as remote from being a general behavior as you are from being a communist. What I see here is exactly what I see everyday on this thread with you or anyone else beside those who don't care, word twisting and the complete absence of self questioning.
You confused the impact of racism and the act of racialization. One being the effect of an action, the other being the action behind the effect.
I'm not trembling out from my point here. I was right to call out the sexism and the dehumanization of the minks and Carrot as a way to belittle the character. I was comparing the behavior known as dehumanization as a tool to destroy the legitimacy of a woman from a racialized tribe in the One Piece world.
It would be a mermaid, it would be the same F thing. Wait.. maybe you are about to tell me that people actually dehumanize fishmen everyday here? Yup.. maybe .. Which would confirm my hypothesis : the way we treat people in real life is relative to the way we treat fictional characters.
People are toxic here, it's not something weird to see people being toxic with the characters.
A threat? You are kidding right? You are the one threatening me with "your close enough of reality" manipulation each time you open your mouth.
You know full well as the moderator that you are.. that we are in a place full of confusionnist and reactionnary that would not hesitate to jump on me with the snap of a finger if I were to show the SLIGHTEST sign of moral ambiguity. So you use the classic technics knows by every reactionary of the planet: Trying to make a leftist look immoral.
I've been ignoring this most of the time, reminding you here and there that you were lying and a bit manipulative, but DAMN, this is vicious. This has been your MAIN technique with me. In fact, I'm not exaggerating when I say that this has been your only technique.
This behavior, this manipulation o fyours, is the reason why you are not my ally and absolutely not an ally of leftists.
You say that you understand leftism while using far right tactics as a MODERATOR to belittle someone who already has to deal with dogpiling on a daily basis. For what reason ? Because I talk too much? Because I say to people that they don't understand leftism ?
Really - no matter if I'm right or wrong - you behavior is not acceptable. Each time you try this, you force me to write a 10 pages essay because I can't allow myself to be this type of target.
You know what you do. And now you know that I know it too.
Not this.
This:
I feel like TERFs are out of hands. At first I had thought that they just meant that trans men/women people aren't really men/women because only sex matters to them but the movement often goes far beyond that and makes alliances with very bad mofos and the dumbest ideas.
If we look around us, we'll see plenty of TERFs especially among the elderly. But these old people aren't even specifically conservatives or what.
If we look around us, we'll see plenty of TERFs especially among the elderly. But these old people aren't even specifically conservatives or what.
You also need "broad" definitions to do some comparative historical analysis, you know, as political scienstists also do.
Scholarship isnt about pretending that only one definition exists. It means being explicit about which definition you’re using and why. In this case, to make a structural comparison between the practices of the ottoman empire that perfectly align with colonialism.
Postcolonial theory is one lens that is valid, for sure. But structural imperial analysis is another. Your insistence on one of those, treating it basically as "science" itself, while refusing to recognize the plurality of the term we are discussing in different historical contexts is theoretical gatekeeping and, highkey anti-scientific.
And with your hyper precise definition, still, a good chunk of colonial history wouldnt be considered colonialism. So you care about science and what experts say, but at the same time you dont even inconvenient and if you have to move some goalposts.
cant have your cake and eat it too.
and anti-logical*
Scholarship isnt about pretending that only one definition exists. It means being explicit about which definition you’re using and why. In this case, to make a structural comparison between the practices of the ottoman empire that perfectly align with colonialism.
Postcolonial theory is one lens that is valid, for sure. But structural imperial analysis is another. Your insistence on one of those, treating it basically as "science" itself, while refusing to recognize the plurality of the term we are discussing in different historical contexts is theoretical gatekeeping and, highkey anti-scientific.
And with your hyper precise definition, still, a good chunk of colonial history wouldnt be considered colonialism. So you care about science and what experts say, but at the same time you dont even inconvenient and if you have to move some goalposts.
cant have your cake and eat it too.
Post automatically merged:
and anti-logical*
So basically, you are once again positioning yourself as the physical manifestation of leftism, and that anyone who disagrees with you must be against leftism itself.
And here you are doing exactly what you are preaching against, showcasing your projections once again. "There are no racial differences that suggest superiority over someone else and saying otherwise is propaganda". Seeing you try to twist this into far right rhetoric for the sake of feeling right. You not understanding what you type and having a superiority complex is something you need to fix.
And here you are doing exactly what you are preaching against, showcasing your projections once again. "There are no racial differences that suggest superiority over someone else and saying otherwise is propaganda". Seeing you try to twist this into far right rhetoric for the sake of feeling right. You not understanding what you type and having a superiority complex is something you need to fix.
holy smoly that shit is juicy
i dont know many terfs (unless we consider who logiko considers terfs, then suddenly most women i know are terfs. . .) , but how are they going far beyond that?
Generally offensive, or even advocating for them to not get any opportunity of medical transition or being legally recognized as a different gender?
Post automatically merged:
i dont know many terfs (unless we consider who logiko considers terfs, then suddenly most women i know are terfs. . .) , but how are they going far beyond that?
Generally offensive, or even advocating for them to not get any opportunity of medical transition or being legally recognized as a different gender?
There are links between TERFs and very conservative movement. TERFs are not "lefty but trans people are they sex".
Sometimes they'll even go into grooming conspiracy theories. There are plenty of things like that. I don't have all the links ready to answer that like Logiko. Their activists have sometimes links with nazi groups too apprently.
It's true that TERFs are not rare. But there is a difference between just stating that trans men are not real men and going with all the bullshit about gender therapy, grooming theories, denying that nazis killed trans-people and so on.
Sometimes they'll even go into grooming conspiracy theories. There are plenty of things like that. I don't have all the links ready to answer that like Logiko. Their activists have sometimes links with nazi groups too apprently.
It's true that TERFs are not rare. But there is a difference between just stating that trans men are not real men and going with all the bullshit about gender therapy, grooming theories, denying that nazis killed trans-people and so on.
Guys, I have finished a video game run today. I haven't played games since 2018. I replayed my very first (and favorite) RPG: G2 NOTR. I didn't even install patches for a vintage experience. What a magical moment this was. I even found new shit and achieved the highest level I ever achieved( 51). I swear. If you have never played this game, you are missing out. G2 Gold>>>touching grass or debating C4N. You guys need to give it a try. I think this game does exploration, immersion, and balancing way better than The Witcher 3. This game is special. A truly underrated masterpiece.
Last edited:
Yeah. That what I tried to speak about it here:
What I know from TERFism is that they are often former progressive liberal women who radicalized rapidely without taking care of their reactionnary biases. They end up promoting the hatred of trans and non binary people, but also racist, eugenist and even fascist ideas.
I've had a skermish with some of them.. They will not hesitate in using ALL the leftists tools they know to attack your rethoric.
You can also call them radfem.
You need to know the usage to adjust their. Not use them as such.
For example, if you want to talk about how racism was treated since the 2000', you could explain how the broader and simpler version of racism had a massive impact then you might contrast that with an analysis of what racism really is from the pov of the research.
That's fair. But you can hardly be relevant to talk about racism and colonialism and use basic definition. That's what pseudoscientist do on TV sets. Researchers and other political scholar usually push the limits a little bit further. Here, our goal is to have relevant discussions and push the boundary.
At least that's mine. If I wanna politicize this thread and forum, this is the only way. We need to get out of the confort zone of the broad definitions.
Now.. that's the type of discussions that I wish we could have on a daily basis. Yes. Maybe I have a bias in one way or another but it can only be discussed through the content of the argumentation.
Technically, I'm actually taking both into account in my analysis. There is a form of conflict between Marxism and post-structuralism concerning materialism and I usually choose the middle ground. As such I use both the structural imperialist (marxist) lens and the post-colonial (post-structuralism) one has a tool of guidance.
If you prefer, it's an extended vision of materialism.
But what you don't understand is that I'm willing to agree with you...... IF you give me reason to agree.
You can't just tell me "with your definition a lot of history would be considered colonial" without explaining what you are talking about, because the logic mbehind my argumentation precisely negates that. So show me, then we will see. Don't just tell me "well it's not possible".
mais cpa possible
What I know from TERFism is that they are often former progressive liberal women who radicalized rapidely without taking care of their reactionnary biases. They end up promoting the hatred of trans and non binary people, but also racist, eugenist and even fascist ideas.
I've had a skermish with some of them.. They will not hesitate in using ALL the leftists tools they know to attack your rethoric.
You can also call them radfem.
You need to know the usage to adjust their. Not use them as such.
For example, if you want to talk about how racism was treated since the 2000', you could explain how the broader and simpler version of racism had a massive impact then you might contrast that with an analysis of what racism really is from the pov of the research.
That's fair. But you can hardly be relevant to talk about racism and colonialism and use basic definition. That's what pseudoscientist do on TV sets. Researchers and other political scholar usually push the limits a little bit further. Here, our goal is to have relevant discussions and push the boundary.
At least that's mine. If I wanna politicize this thread and forum, this is the only way. We need to get out of the confort zone of the broad definitions.
Now.. that's the type of discussions that I wish we could have on a daily basis. Yes. Maybe I have a bias in one way or another but it can only be discussed through the content of the argumentation.
Technically, I'm actually taking both into account in my analysis. There is a form of conflict between Marxism and post-structuralism concerning materialism and I usually choose the middle ground. As such I use both the structural imperialist (marxist) lens and the post-colonial (post-structuralism) one has a tool of guidance.
If you prefer, it's an extended vision of materialism.
But what you don't understand is that I'm willing to agree with you...... IF you give me reason to agree.
You can't just tell me "with your definition a lot of history would be considered colonial" without explaining what you are talking about, because the logic mbehind my argumentation precisely negates that. So show me, then we will see. Don't just tell me "well it's not possible".
mais cpa possible
Thats because a good chunk of feminist are religious or conservative. Also toss in the "modern" version of hating anything involving men. They will side with conservatives by design since it is them that will go against Trans people or lgbtq+ in general. Leftist and liberals usually side with Trans.
Think of a Muslim getting treated like shit because of "terrorist yadayada", but still voting republican because he could be vehemently anti-gay.
Think of a Muslim getting treated like shit because of "terrorist yadayada", but still voting republican because he could be vehemently anti-gay.
@Logiko I feel bad for not having read your essay about feminism because I asked for it 
I swear I'll do it though. Eventually not now because it's late... Save it somewhere !
Yeah but it's not just this explanation. For instance sometimes it feels like atheist feminists who were radical lefty in their youth just always lived as if trans-people weren't real. They couldn't believe their eyes that they haven't dealt with that themselves and thought that it just was invented in the 2010s or something like that.
I swear I'll do it though. Eventually not now because it's late... Save it somewhere !Yeah but it's not just this explanation. For instance sometimes it feels like atheist feminists who were radical lefty in their youth just always lived as if trans-people weren't real. They couldn't believe their eyes that they haven't dealt with that themselves and thought that it just was invented in the 2010s or something like that.
@Logiko I feel bad for not having read your essay about feminism because I asked for it I swear I'll do it though. Eventually not now because it's late... Save it somewhere !
I swear I'll do it though. Eventually not now because it's late... Save it somewhere !
It's one of those thread that I can't really forget. If you need it, just type "Logiko's thread about feminism and patriarchy". I added this title in capital letters lol.