Either, you didn't read what I said to him or you don't care to understand at the moment:
First, the guy didn't struggle. Bob was someone who ADVOCATED for men who struggled, because for him there was a injustive and women are treated better than men. I actually gave him PLENTY of affirmation multiple ways how - as a man - you can deal with struggles, because - let me remind you once again - this is a subject that touch me DIRECTLY compared to Bob who was simply rambling anti-feminist things because he listened to much to Shapiro or J.Peterson.
So please, do not even try to reverse the blame here. I don't like this kind of behavior.
I took HOURS of my times to give him ressources on the reality of the situations of men AND women and to make him understand the problem with Patriarchy which is - BTW - not a party, and not some kind of organization, but a SYSTEMIC problem. If you want to understand what this means >
Leftist Library section "understanding feminism"
That's not gonna happen. Like I told you, if you depict a set of beliefs, you are socially part of a political group on the political spectrum OR highly contradictory.
For ex. You can't be anti-feminist and a leftist.. that's not how things work.
I've never been proven wrong on the labels I gave until now. Can't say the same for others.
You show me things that make me think that you are actually opposed to leftist subject. But maybe it might be an error of comprehension between us. I'm willing to change my mind on that, but if you keep repeating things that show me exactly the opposite, I have no reason to.
Ok. I agree on that too. And this is indeed what a leftist would say.
What is your point of view on Meritocracy ?
And this.. shows me that you do not understand one of the CORE value of radical leftism:
The refusal to politicize politic subjects.
I forgot this point, but this is one of the major reasons why I keep siding you up with liberals (because it's the side that constantly depoliticizes subjects). I've explained in detail many many many times how it was important as spectators to politicize the discussions about the stories we are consuming. This politization is ESSENTIAL to avoid missing core subjects relative to the narrations and the thematics of the story.
One Piece is highly political so choosing to refuse the politization of political subject (such the Nakama war was) is heavily problematic. It's prevent us from understanding and discussing why we are debating and fighting so much.
There is no such thing as "real world nonsense", politization is essential. You were just led to believe that depolitization was normal in discussion about stories, but it's not.
There is a difference between politization (which I did for example in the case of the minks) and labelization which I do when someone doesn't understand why I counter them so much. Politization is necessary to understand fully stories, labelization is necessary to avoid confusionnist behaviors is political debates.
Not really no. And this show that there is a political gap between us. Until that gap is breached, I will have a hard time seeing you on my side.
See.. you don't understand. What I'm telling you is different.
You are telling me that "i don't know who leftist are" for the simple reasons that your vision of leftists is made by people who call themselves leftist but are actually in opposition to leftist or radical leftists.. So when I tell you that you are not surrounded by radical, I'm telling you that you actually can't know what real leftism is because you are mainly listening to their political opposite.
We have guys like that in the political spectrum in France. Hollande, the former french president, keeps talking about the left when in reality, the guy made Macron who he is today and has developped a full rightist politic in power.
That's what I mean by confusionnist. People who try to appear progressive when they have in reality anti-progressist ideas. And the problem is your behavior is similar. You are telling me that you would be considered a radical leftist, and you give me good reasons to, but in your actions, you keep on showing me an ideology opposed to leftism.
You criticize capitalism, but you refuse the politization of debate.. it's purely contradictory. So when you use this rethoric and make me say that I'm not the representation of leftist when all my values are the product of leftists struggles, then you are creating confusionnism.
So again, I'm willing to change my mind, but you will have to make a step forward to understand that when I say that I understand leftism, I mean that I understand what is NOT leftism.
See.. refusal to accept the experience of oppressed people. You keep on thinking that I take what I learn from random website when in reality, this warnings of mine come from a deep understanding of the notions of heteronormativity and transphobia.
Understanding that is confirmed by all the people (trans people) I know the work.
You will not be on their side as long as you will think that I'm changing definition. This conspirationnist belief about cancel culture and woke that we are trying to cancel people for random words in general is ALSO one of the reason why I can't consider you on the progressive side at the moment.
Again. If you still do not believe me. Go to the r/trans , tell them that you are a moderator on a forum and you want to have a precision on transphobia. Ask them if saying "A trans woman is a man is transphobic". It's a very easy and quick exercice. You will have your answer and it will not come from me. (just be nice to them please)
sigh
Can you give me example of groups of people promoting body positivity who consider obesity as healthy ?
No because it looks like the common Van thing you are used to do, and I mean by that deforming completely the rethoric of people to create conflict.
People who promote body positivity and fat acceptance never say that obesity is healthyn they know the reality of obesity, but yeah, it's important to allow people in obesity to feel sexy. This is PRIMORDIAL for them to gain confidence, which is the opposite of what you promote by pushing your standard and judment on those people.
So indeed, we are talking about a specific thing, but it looks like you are not understanding the core of it.
You see that the problem. "Harsh truth" are the reason why people can't accept themselves and start to get better. Because throwing to the face of those people a "harsh truth" that they
ALREADY KNOW can only have one effect : Make them think that they do not do what is needed to get out of their situation.
In other word you harsh truth is not better, it's counter productive and pro actively hurtfull.
Yeah.. keep comparing politization of a political discussions about a political story with endoctrinement.
You are once again showing that you refuse politization, which is one of the core reason why leftist fight liberals in the first place.
Again, you are lying. I laugh WHEN Bob tried to explain to me that men have it harder than women. in other words, in a separate comment with separate quote.
Again, you are lying about a conversation that you never followed.
It's crazy how I'm the only one making an effort to bridge the gap here, once again, but you keep the attacks and the lies.
Show them to me please.
Capitalism is purely meritocratic. Meritocracy is the self justification for capitalist to maintain capitalism.
The ideas that some people deserve to be rich and other deserve to be exploited is the core value behind the justification of capitalism. There can't be change without removing meritocracy for the equation.
We really have to make leftism more accessible... because this is unreadable. I had to put that in google traduction and even then it's make no sense.
The point is : Meritocracy is the problem and the backbone of capitalism. We cannot get rid of capitalism without getting rid of meritocracy at the same time because if we do not, we are bound to repeat capitalistic systems on other societies.
Oh come on, can you all stop lying about what I say, this is getting ridiculous...
I never said that we should protest against the gov for banning twitter. I remember in fact being quite neutral on the subject since I had no knowledge of the in and outs of the conflict. I even laughed at nameless for not being able to use twitter because of Elon..
On the other hand, the moment where I said that people should protest came when someone told me that the gov was planning to ban VPN's usage, which is not normal and highly dangerous.
As shown here:
>>>
My answer:
And to Nameless explaining to me that it was "communism"
And to this
I replied:
So I never sided with big corporation, but with the right of people to be able to access the information they want without restriction. Some people use twitter out of necessity. Banning twitter is one thing that I can understand, banning VPNs is dangerous for the freedom.
Can we have discussions without deforming the rethoric of others... please people ?
