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
I just politicized today. Since it was relevant enough for me to notice it, I wanted to share that with you to show how the politicization toward materialism can change a mindset. This time it's not something major:
As you might have seen in this case, not a big politicization, in fact, my mindset didn't really change that much, I just listened to people who aligned the materialist framework with the subject I talked about, which created a contradiction for me because I didn't aligned my own rethoric and belief about the subject with my own materialist framework quite well. So by listening to activist, especially a trans person in this case talking about the inexistance of gender disphoria, I decided to adjust my belief system and naturally adopt a contradictory belief - which I knew was logical - to create a coherency within my understanding.
This is what I mean when I mention the ethical need for people to "politicize" toward leftism and materialism. For rightists who want to politicize toward the materialist framework, this type of realignment must happen 100, 300, 500, a thousand time over and over again to create an effective politicization. This is why you can't simply read the Capital even as a leftist and understand Marxism because you will usually miss - like I did here - the coherency of the materialist framework at play.
Also I'm adding the fact that you should not try to understand Marx if you just came out of the right or that you still believe in liberalism... I believe that politicization, like truth, must take the stairs.
Not for conservative people here:
If you believe that conservatism is the way to go, I think your goal should not to try to decrypt materialism or align yourself with what I'm talking about, your entire persepective will prevent you from looking at my framework in the way I do and what I consider to be ethical. I believe your goal should rather to find the most ETHICAL way to be conservative.
As such, I shall not ask you to politicize toward the left in your case, and rather ask you to ask yourself if you have taken all the ethics of your position into account.
For example if you believe that capitalism must be maintained, how do you feel about people living in poverty? And do you think rationnalizing that paradigm through the naturalization of "will" ("they are poor because they are born to be poor or dominated").. really aligns with what you consider to be an ethical and rationnal way to see the world? This is just one question out of thousand that I believe you should ask yourself as I did myself in the past.
As for less conservative people..
... Rather centrist or liberal who might consider themselves leftists. I would rather try to ask myself if what I believe really aligns with the scientific, ethical and researched reality of the world. To be progressive is to understand that simple answer and simple emotive mindset are usually the ones that lead to reactionnarism, dehumanizing and genocidal mindset... So if I were you, I would try to verify if my belief system are not simply based on simplistic visions and beliefs.
For example, are you really fine with a simplified version of racism? The one that you learned at school. The one that tell us that skin color is what create dehumanization? Now what if I told you that human sciences (sociology and history mostly) show us a much more complex version of racism than an individualistic system based on the color of the skin, but something that rather comes from a long history of power relationship and dominations than built and transformed themselves over time to become what we know as white supremacy today?
Wouldn't it be exciting to align your belief system with a more updated version of this notion?
Anyway.. I'm rambling again. I think I'm trying to avoid doing some chores today.
Did you notice how I kept bringing up Gender Disphoria about Trans People and how it risks pushing therm toward suicide? Well forget that. I do not believe in that such pathology exist. Does this means that I don't believe trans people can go toward suicide because of some kind of "thing" out of their control? Totally. But this "think" is a kind of arm that is not done to them because of some pathological afflication. And in insight, this makes much more sense why doctors can't pinpoint gender disphoria.
Gender disphoria is not a thing. Gender disphoria is the pathological name we give to describe the pressure put down on people by a cis normative society and its transphobia. As you can see, my speech does not really change, as I have said that many times before. In the surface, nothing change indeed. But it is in the deepness of the argument that lie the change.
You see, we are part of the antipsychiatry movement. Antipsy activists fight against the institution of the psychiatry and medical care that we consider is systematically harmfull to disabled people and people who have what some call "mental illness". We believe that the medical and psychiatric institutions have monopolized the power and ressources of the care, thus preventing any other form of collective care to be created and puttin the people I talked about, in danger and marginalizing them in the process through psychiatric langage.
On top of that, we know that what we call "psys" (psychiatric and psychologists) all have a different material interest, opposed to marginalized people either disabled or psychiatrized. These interests are created in the intersection of capitalism, ableism and sanism to create a situation where the return to the production line of capitalism will be considered by the system as a form of "healing". No marginalized disabled or psychiatrized people will therefore be considered "healthy" as long as they won't be productive within the capitalist society. (also reenforced by the meritocratic myth)
As such, we do not believe in the concept of Mental illness. We believe that what people describe as such, are the result of environmental, situationnal and social pressure creating various blocks and natural failsafe within the brain. We don't think we can't "treat" a mental illness like we can treat a somatic affliction, as the very concept of "treat" is fundamentally pushed within the capitalists and productive context. We believe in care. True, collective and shared care.
We consider that to better the mental situation of a person, we need to better the material conditions of existence of said person:
- Financial security
- Reducing of stress
- Different form of life structure
- Change of social environement
Etc.
Our first priority is to make sure that every person who have basic needs are being taken care of collectively, and usually, the first priority for someone to get better is financial security.
Despite that and until now, I have kept talking about "gender disphoria" referencing the psychiatric and pathological name for what Trans people live in their lives. This is an error and a problem that is now resolved.
The affliction leaving trans people in suffering is real, but it shall not be idealistically individualized as a pathological illness or trouble. This problem is the accumulated pressure created by the ENTIRE transphobic system and as such, the solution is absolutely not to pathologize trans people but to help them find a more positive form of material condition.
This means, allowing for the collectivization of the care for trans people regarding transitionning. As this process is handle under the power of psychiatric institutions still as I explained earlier. This means : educating people on care, collectivizing the medication, collectivizing the knowledge and allowing ALL trans people to transition as it is the major way for them to face the transphobic system that is our capitalists, ableist, sanist and transphobic hellhole.
Our point is not to say that mental condition that can make people suffer do not exist, our point is to show why, the solution is not pathologization but the collectivization of care and the education and politicization of society toward the understanding of these interconnected issue.
As what people live under sanism or ableism is connected to what people live under capitalism or patriarchy or any other types of domination systems.
Gender disphoria is not a thing. Gender disphoria is the pathological name we give to describe the pressure put down on people by a cis normative society and its transphobia. As you can see, my speech does not really change, as I have said that many times before. In the surface, nothing change indeed. But it is in the deepness of the argument that lie the change.
You see, we are part of the antipsychiatry movement. Antipsy activists fight against the institution of the psychiatry and medical care that we consider is systematically harmfull to disabled people and people who have what some call "mental illness". We believe that the medical and psychiatric institutions have monopolized the power and ressources of the care, thus preventing any other form of collective care to be created and puttin the people I talked about, in danger and marginalizing them in the process through psychiatric langage.
On top of that, we know that what we call "psys" (psychiatric and psychologists) all have a different material interest, opposed to marginalized people either disabled or psychiatrized. These interests are created in the intersection of capitalism, ableism and sanism to create a situation where the return to the production line of capitalism will be considered by the system as a form of "healing". No marginalized disabled or psychiatrized people will therefore be considered "healthy" as long as they won't be productive within the capitalist society. (also reenforced by the meritocratic myth)
As such, we do not believe in the concept of Mental illness. We believe that what people describe as such, are the result of environmental, situationnal and social pressure creating various blocks and natural failsafe within the brain. We don't think we can't "treat" a mental illness like we can treat a somatic affliction, as the very concept of "treat" is fundamentally pushed within the capitalists and productive context. We believe in care. True, collective and shared care.
We consider that to better the mental situation of a person, we need to better the material conditions of existence of said person:
- Financial security
- Reducing of stress
- Different form of life structure
- Change of social environement
Etc.
Our first priority is to make sure that every person who have basic needs are being taken care of collectively, and usually, the first priority for someone to get better is financial security.
(I, for example, have been with a professionnal for years without a change, during that time, I had very little to spare and eat. I only have bad meal, horrible foods, scarces ressources leading to immense stress, the fear of receiving a letter of refusal for basic income at any time, I was isolating myself even more talking to noone besides this site, my health got horrible, my "depression" increased... it was horrible and with no results despite too much medications, I stopped seeing the psychiatrist and decided to apply to a disability fund. Well guess what happen the very week it got accepted.... Peace came back to my mind, I stopped being conflictual and started to look at ways to heal, my "depression" went away, my future sudddenly got brighter, my hearth started to slow down.. and while I'm not out yet, the changes I feel between then and now are immeasurable).
Despite that and until now, I have kept talking about "gender disphoria" referencing the psychiatric and pathological name for what Trans people live in their lives. This is an error and a problem that is now resolved.
The affliction leaving trans people in suffering is real, but it shall not be idealistically individualized as a pathological illness or trouble. This problem is the accumulated pressure created by the ENTIRE transphobic system and as such, the solution is absolutely not to pathologize trans people but to help them find a more positive form of material condition.
This means, allowing for the collectivization of the care for trans people regarding transitionning. As this process is handle under the power of psychiatric institutions still as I explained earlier. This means : educating people on care, collectivizing the medication, collectivizing the knowledge and allowing ALL trans people to transition as it is the major way for them to face the transphobic system that is our capitalists, ableist, sanist and transphobic hellhole.
Our point is not to say that mental condition that can make people suffer do not exist, our point is to show why, the solution is not pathologization but the collectivization of care and the education and politicization of society toward the understanding of these interconnected issue.
As what people live under sanism or ableism is connected to what people live under capitalism or patriarchy or any other types of domination systems.
As you might have seen in this case, not a big politicization, in fact, my mindset didn't really change that much, I just listened to people who aligned the materialist framework with the subject I talked about, which created a contradiction for me because I didn't aligned my own rethoric and belief about the subject with my own materialist framework quite well. So by listening to activist, especially a trans person in this case talking about the inexistance of gender disphoria, I decided to adjust my belief system and naturally adopt a contradictory belief - which I knew was logical - to create a coherency within my understanding.
This is what I mean when I mention the ethical need for people to "politicize" toward leftism and materialism. For rightists who want to politicize toward the materialist framework, this type of realignment must happen 100, 300, 500, a thousand time over and over again to create an effective politicization. This is why you can't simply read the Capital even as a leftist and understand Marxism because you will usually miss - like I did here - the coherency of the materialist framework at play.
Also I'm adding the fact that you should not try to understand Marx if you just came out of the right or that you still believe in liberalism... I believe that politicization, like truth, must take the stairs.
Not for conservative people here:
If you believe that conservatism is the way to go, I think your goal should not to try to decrypt materialism or align yourself with what I'm talking about, your entire persepective will prevent you from looking at my framework in the way I do and what I consider to be ethical. I believe your goal should rather to find the most ETHICAL way to be conservative.
As such, I shall not ask you to politicize toward the left in your case, and rather ask you to ask yourself if you have taken all the ethics of your position into account.
For example if you believe that capitalism must be maintained, how do you feel about people living in poverty? And do you think rationnalizing that paradigm through the naturalization of "will" ("they are poor because they are born to be poor or dominated").. really aligns with what you consider to be an ethical and rationnal way to see the world? This is just one question out of thousand that I believe you should ask yourself as I did myself in the past.
As for less conservative people..
... Rather centrist or liberal who might consider themselves leftists. I would rather try to ask myself if what I believe really aligns with the scientific, ethical and researched reality of the world. To be progressive is to understand that simple answer and simple emotive mindset are usually the ones that lead to reactionnarism, dehumanizing and genocidal mindset... So if I were you, I would try to verify if my belief system are not simply based on simplistic visions and beliefs.
For example, are you really fine with a simplified version of racism? The one that you learned at school. The one that tell us that skin color is what create dehumanization? Now what if I told you that human sciences (sociology and history mostly) show us a much more complex version of racism than an individualistic system based on the color of the skin, but something that rather comes from a long history of power relationship and dominations than built and transformed themselves over time to become what we know as white supremacy today?
Wouldn't it be exciting to align your belief system with a more updated version of this notion?
Anyway.. I'm rambling again. I think I'm trying to avoid doing some chores today.
Last edited:
Background: DSA is a big tent organization, meaning people of lots of different beliefs and socialist traditions are part of it. DSA's internal politics are based around the caucuses which typically represent different political ideologies or organizing priorities. [Libertarian Socialist Caucus has a good overview here](https://dsa-lsc.org/2025/01/31/a-guide-to-dsa-politics/). The caucuses are broadly separated into a 'right wing' (they call themselves the Majoritarians) and a 'left wing' (their opponents call them the Sectarians). The DSA Right wants to focus on running candidates for elections, and they think building social movements should be tied closely to funneling them into supporting political campaigns. The DSA Left is more hardline on politicians and more interested in building unions and ideological political education. For instance, the DSA Right wants AOC to run for president while the DSA Left thinks she should be expelled for not supporting Gaza enough and lying about Kamala/Biden working towards a ceasefire etc.
Fast forward to what is happening now: There is a debate about how a candidate for president (most assume AOC) should be endorsed in 2028. The DSA Left has a majority on the DSA's national steering committee (called the NPC = National Political Committee). They think endorsements should be done at the chapter level. Ostensibly it's because they want people to have more deliberative face-to-face discussions, but the other reason is they think active members who go to meetings support their politics more. The DSA Right wants to have a national online poll of all members, even those who aren't active and don't go to meetings. They say this is more democratic, but also it's because they think less active members support their more electoralist politics. This was voted at the NPC, and the DSA Left position won since they have the majority. The DSA Right is really mad, and the NYC-DSA Treasurer sent a threatening letter to the NPC suggesting NYC-DSA would split from the organization. Now everyone is upset at eachother.
I don't know if Libertarian Socialist Caucus is losing members right now, but pre-Zohran they were. A lot of the previous hardline anti-electoralist caucuses like Communist Caucus, Emerge, and yes Libertarian Socialist Caucus, have dropped the anti-electoralist commitment. Libertarian Socialist Caucus for instance says they just want to prioritize non-electoral organizing but they aren't totally opposed to running candidates for political office anymore, just want them to be 'held accountable'. This is almost certainly because having nationally-recognized politicians is the defining feature of DSA, and these caucuses' years-long attempt trying to push the organization elsewhere is just not working out. A Marxism-influenced democratic socialism is kind of the main DSA ideology, and Marxist-Leninism is probably second - one of the national co-chairs is a Marxist-Leninist, for instance. DSA as an organization though is at an all time high, as the other person commented. They just got to the 120,000 member threshold, making them the largest socialist organization in US history.
________
Not written by me
Interesting comment about the DSA's internal politics
Fast forward to what is happening now: There is a debate about how a candidate for president (most assume AOC) should be endorsed in 2028. The DSA Left has a majority on the DSA's national steering committee (called the NPC = National Political Committee). They think endorsements should be done at the chapter level. Ostensibly it's because they want people to have more deliberative face-to-face discussions, but the other reason is they think active members who go to meetings support their politics more. The DSA Right wants to have a national online poll of all members, even those who aren't active and don't go to meetings. They say this is more democratic, but also it's because they think less active members support their more electoralist politics. This was voted at the NPC, and the DSA Left position won since they have the majority. The DSA Right is really mad, and the NYC-DSA Treasurer sent a threatening letter to the NPC suggesting NYC-DSA would split from the organization. Now everyone is upset at eachother.
I don't know if Libertarian Socialist Caucus is losing members right now, but pre-Zohran they were. A lot of the previous hardline anti-electoralist caucuses like Communist Caucus, Emerge, and yes Libertarian Socialist Caucus, have dropped the anti-electoralist commitment. Libertarian Socialist Caucus for instance says they just want to prioritize non-electoral organizing but they aren't totally opposed to running candidates for political office anymore, just want them to be 'held accountable'. This is almost certainly because having nationally-recognized politicians is the defining feature of DSA, and these caucuses' years-long attempt trying to push the organization elsewhere is just not working out. A Marxism-influenced democratic socialism is kind of the main DSA ideology, and Marxist-Leninism is probably second - one of the national co-chairs is a Marxist-Leninist, for instance. DSA as an organization though is at an all time high, as the other person commented. They just got to the 120,000 member threshold, making them the largest socialist organization in US history.
________
Not written by me
Interesting comment about the DSA's internal politics
