17

Who do you find "the left" unfairly excludes or discriminates against the most? How can we be more inclusive to that particular group?

Submitted by leftous in AskRaddle

Please don't be hung up on the word "left" - by that I just mean anti-capitalist/anti-oppressive allies.

I was curious about what people thought regarding the unconscious and unfair biases prevalent within leftist communities. Moreover, how we can become more conscious of these biases, and accommodate those who are being excluded.

The question was prompted by a friend of mine (with a learning disability) who finds a lot of the language leftists use inaccessible to him.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

28

kittybecca wrote

This gets said a lot, but a big part of the left is too centered around cities and even openly contemptuous of people in rural areas and/or small towns. A big way of changing this might be for people from rural areas and small towns to, where possible, talk to their families and other people back home, keep a dialog open and do their best to change minds. If you approach it the right way, if you say "we all..." rather than "you need to..." etc., if you have a conversation rather than talking at other people, if you advance your argument in a way that doesn't make you sound like some elitist ass who is trying to make everyone bow to your newfound wokeness, you can accomplish more than you might think.

16

red_pepper wrote

It's also critical to understand the material conditions of these people and how those conditions play into their seemingly ignorant opinions. the way people's employment interacts with their belief in climate change is my go to example for this.

A combination of environmental regulations and renewable/natural gas growth has lead to a massive contraction in the coal industry. In turn, this has lead to the loss of a lot of well paying jobs and the collapse of pensions and the decline of coal unions. In return, they got a bunch of ununionized fracking jobs and solar installation jobs without the same benefits or wages or job security. They had to retrain to do those jobs too, and many people who were in their 50's just retired early. Worse, those jobs weren't located in the same area and so many have had to uproot their lives to move to where the jobs are. This has also lead to the decline of the rest of the economy in coal country.

Convincing these people that climate change is a deadly threat that needs to be fought aggressively is impossible in these material conditions. It's not a matter of education or propaganda, and no amount of arguing will ever sway them. In order to actually bring them on board, we need to change their conditions. Unionize solar and gas, or bail out the pensions, or something. Give them a reason to fight climate change, rather than force them to sacrifice even more when they have already lost so much for the "greater good". Yet, what does the left have to offer? Ridicule, exclusion, and zero sympathy. As if they deserve to lose their jobs and way of life. This needs to change.

15

amongstclouds wrote

Not so much about WHO is left out but I am very skeptical of the 'leftists' who try and hide behind rationality and cold logic. People like me, who FEEL more than I rationalize often get pushed aside as not making sound arguments. When the arguments are perfectly sound they just want people with degrees or 'proof' of their 'knowledge'.

Why else do you think leftist academia hasn't changed anything? Because they benefit from the hierarchy that knowledge creates.

17

red_pepper wrote

I very much agree, and add to this that leftists sometimes confuse an inability to articulate with irrationality (and, conversely, articulation with rationality). Just because someone can't defend one of their beliefs doesn't mean it's indefensible. It just means they haven't had practice defending it. And just because someone can defend their beliefs doesn't mean it's good. It just means they're good at defending.

14

Dumai wrote

hidden secret: rationality is the most bourgeois of bourgeois values

13

deadaluspark wrote (edited )

extra hidden secret: rationality is informed by emotion, and people who cannot experience emotion are unable to rationalize.

to pretend you are "above" emotion and only look at things "rationally" is missing the fucking point.

also, if you're an atheist and you pull that shit, it's even more infuriating, because guess what fuckstick, you're an irrational animal just like anyone else!! putting yourself and other humans on a fucking pedestal is the same shit religious people do.

by rejecting people who are "not smart" we are rejecting the people most likely to be exploited in the world because they lack the educational capacity to know they are being exploited. to reject them and dismiss them is to be dismissing people's real lives and emotions, which still really matter, even if they aren't smart/can't communicate well.

I spent my youth reading all the academics, and I'll spend my adulthood thinking fuck-none-of-them speak for me or understand my life and situations. I'm looking at you Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Slavoj Zizek, etc, etc. sometimes it feels like the only academic I can read without wanting to scream anymore is Cornel West.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Rationality was just an attempt at replacing the 'gods of old' with something 'new' and 'fresh' based on 'experiential methods' while not quite taking into account the flaws and pitfalls of cognition. They sought to place themselves as the great thinkers of a totally new religion where any sort of dissent gets you pinned as a whole assortment of ableist slurs.

Now that I think about it this is kind of hilarious; separation of church and state also arose around this same time, but it seems like the separation was in name alone. Rationality is like a colonial attempt at enforcing certain academic normalcy -- separating the educated from the uneducated -- and the uneducated BETTER listen to the educated OR ELSE.

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

the genealogy of rationality is incredibly misogynist, classist, and racist - it sometimes stuns me that there are radicals who apparently do not know this.

anyway! if you're and atheist an your opinion of religion is that it is "irrational" then you are almost certainly an islamophobe. and speaking of separation of church and state, isn't it interesting that france's state secularism, which is among the most strongly established in the western world, is often weaponised against the country's muslim minority, hmmm

7

amongstclouds wrote

It's almost as if nothing ever changed following the Enlightenment. Oppression and exploitation just became more 'rational' and therefore in the sights of 'rashenul deescoors'.

Kind of like TERFS who expect me to remain civil while they debate the validity of my entire existence and when I choose to tell them to kindly go love themselves they return with 'LOL AD HOMINEM LOL'.

8

Tequila_Wolf wrote

also, "rationality" became oppressive itself. colonised peoples were depicted/portrayed/understood as less rational and this was part and parcel of the justification for the 'civilising' process.

7

Dumai wrote

and this is why it's not a coincidence that many important liberal theorists (j.s. mill springs to mind here) produced a lot of imperialist ideology!

6

zorblax wrote (edited )

anyway! if you're and atheist an your opinion of religion is that it is "irrational" then you are almost certainly an islamophobe.

Such an atheist would say that Islam is a religion and therefore hating/fearing it makes perfect sense.

4

Dumai wrote

and they'd be dumb to do that, especially if they're going to deny islamophobia has any racist content

6

zorblax wrote (edited )

Why? I think it's dumb to favor Islam in particular because or some misguided fear of being racist.

Islam is the ideological bedrock of oppression and heirarchy just like almost every other religion. It's racist to focus on that, sure, but ignoring it is just as ignorant.

6

Dumai wrote

you don't have to favour it but presenting it as a monolithic backwards culture or ideology is very racist yes

there's a huge difference between "islam has historically been used to legitimate oppression" and "islam is an inherently oppressive other that must be secularised (read: westernised) into passivity"

5

zorblax wrote

Okay, so does a hatred of all religions including Islam necessarily mean that someone believes the second?

5

NeoliberalismKills wrote

Religion is like any other tool. It can be wielded for good or bad. Islam inspired Malcom X. Christianity inspired King and many of the abolitionists.

6

zorblax wrote

I don't think that makes it neutral. Money, war, state power, they're all tools, and they've all been put to good use at one point or another, but they're still bad.

5

Dumai wrote

you're right that religion is never politically neutral but you're wrong that religion is always inherently oppressive

6

Dumai wrote

what i find interesting is that there has never been a clear-cut correlation between atheism and left-leaning politics in most places in america, but it's really common nowadays in american politics to assume there is

am i to believe now that catholic socialism wasn't one of the most vibrant left-wing movements in the us? or that the civil rights movement wasn't by and large a religious movement? jewish socialism? like really

7

shanoxilt wrote

I seriously disagree.

The whole world privileges neurotypical emotional inconsistency under the guise of "human nature". There has to be a way to hold neurotypicals accountable that can be demonstrated and replicated by others.

To do otherwise is to be at the mercy of [PDF WARNING] white women's tears.

4

amongstclouds wrote

I'm confused as to what exactly you disagree with?

9

shanoxilt wrote

Emotions are always privileged.

In practice, very few people actually use the cognitive and epistemic tools that have been developed to fight biases. Instead, we get fallacious appeals to "common sense" and "just believing".

People on the left have a huge problem keeping their emotional toxicity and scientific ignorance in check. I'm not looking to be bombarded by a new flavor of "secularized" (note the sarcasm quotes) dogma.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I'm not trying to be an ass, but it feels like you reiterated my point and I don't see the disagreement. Rationality is literally secularized dogma that tries to present itself as the only purpose for its own existence.

The problem is leftists taking up 'a rational standpoint' and using it to posture themselves as more 'in-the-know' and 'woke' than those who don't think just like them. This reinforces the colonial mindset and civilized/savage dichotomy.

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Ah, sure, make these assumptions if you feel like it.

Re-read what I wrote if you get the time and think about what you think I'm trying to say.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Though, I don't disagree with your last point.

So like, really, I'm curious as to what you think I meant?

7

selver wrote

Yeah this one is definitely up there. Not much is more authoritarian than not accepting people's feelings and emotions as valid when it can't be conveyed in theoretical proofs, from the academic elite to the emotionally abusive husband.

6

amongstclouds wrote

It's a problem DEEPLY ingrained in our civilization at this point too. :(

6

selver wrote (edited )

It is, but I also think it's something where improvement is genuinely being made. Even the most liberal feminism & identity politics been pushing ideas about accepting the experiences of others as valid. Unfortunately the rationalist brigade constantly tries to drag them back down to their pathetic legalism & objectivity.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

Adding to this, there are a lot of leftists that diminish any politic that doesn't provide clear answers. For example, Marxists insist anarchism doesn't offer a template for attaining full communism - so that invalidates anarchism in their eyes as 'impractical', 'utopian' (for ancoms) or 'lifestylist' (for anarchists).

Meanwhile, no Marxist has ever achieved full communism, so their expectation for impossible promises is nonsensical. We're not going to promise them perfect lives if they join our special club, because that's not how anarchy (or reality) works.

3

Catsforfun wrote (edited )

feelings do have logic behind them, we just aren't immediately aware of the logic all the time. Sometime you have to think about why you feel a certain something is right or wrong, but doesn't mean you don't have a thought process. The thought process of very often subconscious.

this is why listening to your feelings is important, but also analyzing them too.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

It's the other way around. Logic is informed by emotions and feelings -- only logic is an attempt at normalizing behavior. "Don't feel this way, because that is illogical, and therefore bad."

I wish I could experience things as easily as you all seem to want to portray it. I spend most of my time feeling rather manic and borderline on the verge of tears like 24/7. I certainly do analyze my thought process, but that's not going to stop the fact that I'm impulsive.

10

Dumai wrote (edited )

"anti-zionism is different from anti-semitism" is not a get out of jail free card, it's a promise to respectfully engage with the politics of jewish identity and not cede jewishness to a state project that would very much like to monopolise it

if i had to think of a reason why people get away with conflating anti-zionism with anti-semitism, it's because there is actually a lot of anti-semitism in left spaces that people refuse to engage with! do not be gilad atzmon. do not be noam chomsky. do not immediately look on the star of david as an inherently zionist symbol.

5

red_pepper wrote

I blame Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby and offensive realism theory. It's just Jewish conspiratism wrapped up in a veneer of legitimacy, and a lot of leftists who lack a firm understanding of imperialism bought into it.

5

Dumai wrote

what really gets to me is people who say america's relationship with israel has nothing to do with the government's interests in the middle east and can be reduced solely to some kind of conspiracy of lobbyists to "distort" american foreign policy, like, how do you think american imperialism works

and the implication seems to be that if it could be explained by america's foreign interest that would somehow legitimise it, which is liberal nonsense in the first place

3

leftous wrote

You would consider Chomsky anti-Semitic? Never heard of the other guy, but I would say Chomsky actually does a good job of explaining the imperialist and oppressive nature of Israel.

3

Dumai wrote

if defending and associating with holocaust deniers and denying the reality of contemporary anti-semitism isn't anti-semitic then i don't know what is

4

leftous wrote

He is a liberal no doubt. But by that logic, you're pretty much arguing liberals, the ACLU, and whatever other freeze peach organization is anti-semitic.

It is a bit ridiculous and I would say potentially harmful. To lump liberals in with antisemites, you lessen its meaning and what harm it has caused.

Also in that article isn't he talking more about anti-semitism in the same way we discuss racism/"reverse racism" here where it's in the context of power and opportunity?

4

Dumai wrote

But by that logic, you're pretty much arguing liberals, the ACLU, and whatever other freeze peach organization is anti-semitic.

well i mean... yeah i kind of am

i do not see the fault in that

like would you be uncomfortable saying freeze peachers are pretty racist?

To lump liberals in with antisemites, you lessen its meaning and what harm it has caused.

anti-semitism isn't some exclusive political ideal that belongs solely to the far-right, it's a systemic form of oppression with centuries of history and, as with many of these things, is often perpetuated by liberals

Also in that article isn't he talking more about anti-semitism in the same way we discuss racism/"reverse racism" here where it's in the context of power and opportunity?

well he literally said anti-semitism as whole does not exist in the united states anymore and that the only reason anybody talks about it is because jews as privileged people want "total control", which like... yeah i'm thinking it's a safe bet to say that's anti-semitic

3

leftous wrote

like would you be uncomfortable saying freeze peachers are pretty racist?

Not necessarily since there are two types of freeze peach liberals:

  1. people who want freedom from any consequences of their speech (Those who perpetuate and enable racism)

  2. people who don't want the government to prosecute speech

The second group is where I would fit in groups like the ACLU and Chomsky.

They recognize that it is essential that the state isn't allowed to prosecute people for speech. There are lawmakers in the US who are trying to use anti-semitism and hatespeech laws to shutdown legitimate protests like BDS.

Of course they have priveleged cheerleaders from AIPAC to sell their laws as if they are legitimately to combat antisemitism.

I feel like this is one of the biggest dangers facing the left and Palestinians (in the US, at least) since it is a direct existential threat, and to erase solidarity. It needs to be called out.

Do you believe there is an existential threat on white people and that antiwhite racism exists in the US? I would say Jews have white privelege in the US in particular.

4

Dumai wrote

The second group is where I would fit in groups like the ACLU and Chomsky.

you are aware the ALCU defended the right for neo-nazis to march through a town full of holocaust survivors right

and considering chomsky is a literal friend to holocaust deniers i think he more likely belongs in the first category

Do you believe there is an existential threat on white people and that antiwhite racism exists in the US?

no.

I would say Jews have white privelege in the US in particular.

it's safe to say white jews do - and it's important here to recognise that not all jews are white and there's a discussion to be had on whether even ashkenazim are white in every social setting, particularly during this huge reawakening of american neo-nazism - but believing anti-semitism exists as a systemic issue doesn't mean you have to deny white privilege, i do not know where you are getting that impression

if nothing else we probably ought to take exception to the fact chomsky thought it was a good idea to claim jews are the most privileged section of american society

3

leftous wrote

you are aware the ALCU defended the right for neo-nazis to march through a town full of holocaust survivors right

People should have the right to do whatever they want without government interference. Like I said, precedent is a dangerous thing to play with in the US.

and considering chomsky is a literal friend to holocaust deniers i think he more likely belongs in the first category

Literal friend? Never heard of this.

if nothing else we probably ought to take exception to the fact chomsky thought it was a good idea to claim jews are the most privileged section of american society

I can agree with this. But it should be noted that many on the alt-right are radical Zionists and islamophobic. They actually pose a greater existential threat to the Palestinians.

3

Dumai wrote

People should have the right to do whatever they want without government interference. Like I said, precedent is a dangerous thing to play with in the US.

okay but ever think it's a little weird that the first amendment is often used to protect bigotry (i mean look at aclu's defence of the charlottesville protests if you want a more recent example) but is equally as likely to fail in protecting causes you're more likely to care about? as far as i'm concerned, that's the precedent, and with it is a wider pattern of affording direct legal protection to fascists and other racist extremists - not just protecting their speech but also defending them from any kind of anti-racist action. i feel very confident in condemning anybody who contributes to that precedent.

in any case, you're getting things kinda backwards if you think the us is likely to begin with criminalising hate speech and then move onto targeting radical politics. it already does the latter and consistently fails in the former.

Literal friend? Never heard of this.

chomsky defended french holocaust denier robert faurisson, condemned his suspension from his academic post as an attempt at censorship, and denied there was anything anti-semitic about his "extensive historical research into the 'holocaust' question" (the actual words of a petition chomsky signed!). and just in case anybody is tempted to bring up faurisson's prison sentence in the '90s, this happened years before holocaust denial was even illegal in france, so nobody could have reasonably believed he was in any legal danger at the time.

3

leftous wrote

okay but ever think it's a little weird that the first amendment is often used to protect bigotry (i mean look at aclu's defence of the charlottesville protests if you want a more recent example) but is equally as likely to fail in protecting causes you're more likely to care about? as far as i'm concerned, that's the precedent, and with it is a wider pattern of affording direct legal protection to fascists and other racist extremists - not just protecting their speech but also defending them from any kind of anti-racist action. i feel very confident in condemning anybody who contributes to that precedent.

Youre contradicting yourself here. You claim that the imperialist US government is the real danger...yet you want to give them tools to shutdown dissent? Why are you trying to empower the most dangerous force in the US government? As I said, the US is currently trying to classify solidarity with the Palestinians as hate speech. Governments in Europe are using hate speech laws to attack leftists.

Allowing the government to regulate speech is basically asking for yourself to be arrested since they can then claim what you're doing on Raddle is hatespeech.

This is why organizations like the ACLU are actually vital.

Regarding your points about the Faurisson Affair a basic Wikipedia search pretty much disproves everything here so I have to wonder what your source is.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

i never said i wanted to give it the power to do anything. like most anarchists i'm not in the business of the politics of demand, and the us government is not likely to ever use these powers in the way you're assuming i want anyhow. i was just observing that free speech as a legal construct has often been used as part of a wider political toolset to protect violent bigotry. that's not incompatible with the fact the same system might otherwise legally target left-wing politics.

what have you read on wikipedia that contradicts what i said about faurisson? chomsky did deny that faurisson is anti-semitic, chomsky did sign a petition that described him as an innocent historical researcher, this did happen in the late '70s, long before holocaust denial was criminalised in france in 1990.

2

leftous wrote (edited )

I recognize the problem with liberalism.

But what you're failing to recognize is that the first amendment and those who protect it do so to limit the state. Yes, it's unfortunate that bigots can have a happy home in liberalism. However, limits on the state are the only way anarchists, leftists, and other allies are able to organize without being repressed. To argue against limits on the state while liberalism still exists is completely reckless and dangerous. It threatens everyone who dares to dissent.

Regarding your point about the Faurisson affair. According to what I read, Chomsky was not "literally his friend", because Faurisson included his essay without his knowledge or consent. I think I misread what you wrote otherwise, sorry about that. You're right that it does seem Chomsky failed to acknowledge the anti-semitism in Faurisson's holocaust denial.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

as much as i'd like to believe the american government voluntarily limited its own powers and there were absolutely no authoritarian implications as a result, consolidating racial hatred is one of the many functions of freedom of speech as a legal construct, and it easily provides the state with the tools to do so. violence, too, since the aclu is basically defending the circumstances surrounding heather heyer's death! of course the person who did it is going to prison, but doesn't speak to the fact that it will continue to happen as a result of the policies the aclu defends. in the final analysis freedom of speech is a power of the state in and of itself, like many other well-intentioned attempts at reform.

obviously i'm glad to live in a country where i'm less likely to be arrested for being an anarchist, but that doesn't mean freedom of speech needs to be a part my political values - in part because it takes the presence of a state as granted in the first place. believing in the essential truth of a right to free speech assumes the state deserves the power to grant it! of course petitioning a government to institutionalise political censorship would also legitimate the state, so i'm not going to do that. there, happy now?

According to what I read, Chomsky was not "literally his friend"

well i was exaggerating and using "literally" as an intensifier in that way that annoys language snobs :')

4

leftous wrote

Alright fair enough. My only point is that I will support the right to free speech as long as the state/capitalism exist, and those institutions that protect it, since I think it's our only chance to not get fucked in the interim. Especially in our current culture where everything we say or post is increasingly being tracked. But I totally agree with everything you have to say.

7

Tequila_Wolf wrote

The global south.

For a start, do some reading about (de)colonisation!

Also the differently abled.

Raddle is generally pretty bad with both I think.

6

amongstclouds wrote

Very true. Future project ideas, maybe?

6

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm always working on it :)

3

AudibleAnarchist wrote

Would any of you like to read some essays/book on the subject?

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm always doing that :)

2

AudibleAnarchist wrote

Like for an audio-book.

2

ziq wrote

Make a thread asking for volunteers?

3

nijntje wrote

I just joined but I read through the faq/wiki and noticed (as a european) that it's still pretty us-centered.

I mean looking at f/news and roughly eyeballing it, the majority is about the US, there's some general non-place specific news (blockchain, facebook, etc—still mostly 'western' countries), a handful of european, and fairly little from other countries.

i'm not sure how that can be fixed since it's an audience issue and i've just joined…

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Ohhhh. Whoops. Do you typically work with the general public to record audiobooks? You might want to post a call in f/audiobooks or something. You could chat with u/leftous and get them to sticky it there.

6

libre_dev wrote

There's certainly a neurotypical bias in the left, but I don't know if much can be done about it. Less "beep boop" memes perhaps? I know the fempire cleaned up their act in this regard a while back

6

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I feel like the Left in particular is needlessly hostile to religious folk, and something that alienates me in particular is the use of my Self against my Self, if that makes sense. I get really angry when transhumanists use me as a political piece against primitivists, or when religion as a whole is thrown by the wayside because all religion must be abrahamic and how could a pious trans person exist? It's a wild fucking ride to be called transphobic for not wanting the kind of massive world-spanning strip mines needed to give full body prosthetics and matrix uplinks to everyone, as if people like me would ever be able to afford these wonders in the first place. Fuck, I could barely afford the laptop I'm typing this on or the hormones coursing through my system.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

also: it's fine to mock christians, most atheists kind of suck at it but i'm not going to get offended because i feel like we of all people should have thick skin. but pretty much any white atheist will have no idea to how make fun of islam, judaism, hinduism, sikhi, buddhism or what have you without being racist. they really need to stop trying.

4

drh1138 wrote

Lower-class whites, particularly those in rural settings.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I tend to think that this is the "worker" that most old-school anticapitalists are talking about, so I'm not sure why you think this.

4

drh1138 wrote (edited )

Perhaps in a past age. Nearly everyone I talk to or associate with at least passively looks down on the uneducated, toothless backwoods yokels and their values and lifestyle while simultaneously claiming to be working for their material liberation.

Leftism as it exists today (in the West, at least) is a movement for middle class college activists. Still mostly white, but primarily educated, suburban, and middle class.

0

AbbraKaDabbra wrote

Because the Media want to create a divide between people to drive views for profit and nothing gets more views that outrage. Outrage is click-bait and the more someone is triggered the more views they get hence the more advertisers get and people see the results. Cycle starts again.

This resonates and creates a feedback loop that we, "Everybody" buys into so we create a culture of exclusion because somebody thinks differently and we're all guilty, "Left and Right which is an illusion made to control us", so we then shit-post looking for ways to trigger people until we're taking psychotropic medication that has on the box "May experience violent outbursts" making big pharma money and helping the propaganda networks: "All news is propaganda and they get paid for by big pharma".

We used to be about freedom of choice and we have been tricked. Why are we the side pushing for policies, you do realize that the whole PC culture comes from Politically Correct. When did Liberal mean Politically Correct? Now we're pushing for policies to police language. Why? Shouldn't we rely on Liberal values of tolerance and acceptance? We used to be the Rock Stars and the just let them be crowd, now as soon as you open your mouth and the wrong word comes out everybody jumps down your throat and needs to tell you how you're wrong, it's making us into the dictators, the party poopers. <<< this will probably get this message flagged which would be ironic and sad but true which means that liberal values are dead.

We were the ones who celebrated great songs like "We Are The Champions", but all that we seem to value now is how much we've been hurt. I thought the nuggets of info behind the hard lessons was how we overcame the problem not how much the problem has destroyed us and we need pity. Something has happened and The news always seems to be leading this ALL THE NEWS <<< It's all the same cake, we're just getting different parts. It's time to boycott the news and stop being victims and be victors instead, no matter how much you try saying we are all equals, truth is that everyone is different and categorizing people pisses them off, it doesn't matter how and also diffuses heated arguments about inequality so that we can actually find a solution. We need to bridge the gap and prove that we're tolerant. Just saying it's so means nothing until we show it. <<< otherwise we look hypocritical

We should also be forgiving of who makes mistakes. I say stupid things all the time but now I'm afraid to speak just because I might say something now that will get me fired later on and that's a real problem. People make mistakes and they change their minds, why are we so unforgiving? Also when we are insulting people instead of the message that they are preaching by attacking their character, it shows that we really haven't done our homework and we're after them as a person and not their idea which could be destructive.

Also accepting violence as a means to an end means that we cross a line where it isn't politics anymore but straight out war. Why do we war? What happened? We are supposed to be the neo-hippies, now we're putting on masks and beating people up on the street. <<< This is why "The Left" is unpopular, we need to boycott the news, they are destroying us. They call themselves Liberal and they're just Propagandists and they're using us for their means.

-2

zorblax wrote (edited )

UNPOPULAR OPINION INCOMING

pedophiles, and more broadly anyone with extreme sexual/personality dysfunction.

Lefties seem to have this weird fixation on pedophilia, equating simply having that desire to some sort of affront to humanity. Most pedophiles are not child rapists. It's weird because people will do this whole song and dance to avoid being ableist while basically saying that pedophiles need to be culled.

I think it has to do with an underlying ideological belief that all people are good at heart. It's just not true. There are some people that have truly fucked up minds, no matter what society or situation they're born into, and you have to just accept that and recognize them as people anyway.

EDIT: also, this whole "you're with us or against us" attitude that so many on the left have. It's extremely toxic.

6

ziq wrote (edited )

Yeah, no. There's nothing unfair about excluding pedophiles. They're not oppressed in any way, shape or form. They're oppressors. Their entire identity is based around sexualizing children. I refuse to buy into the 'pedoing is a sexuality just like homosexuality!" narrative pedos peddle on reddit. It's not true.

Seriously, fuck anyone that identifies as a pedo and then complains about being excluded.

Also, talking out against pedo leftists got me stalked and doxxed on reddit and they started a malicious campaign to brand me as a pedo and email people I work with telling them I'm a pedo. All for daring to say that pedos are fucked. So double fuck them.

1

zorblax wrote

if someone close to you said they had dreams about raping children, how would you react?

4

Dumai wrote

pedophilia is a nonsense medical category anyway and actually obscures the gendered nature of systemic child sexual abuse as a practice of power but that's not an excuse to defend people who want to have sex with kids, fuck off with that shit it's not a disability

if anything you seem to be taking advantage of this category's flaws (i.e. the complete myth that there is such a thing as a "pedophile mind", that this is anything but a very shoddy construct) for the benefit of rapists or wannabe rapists. which i notice is very common on the internet nowadays

1

zorblax wrote

Did you know many pedophiles are adamantly against having sex with kids, and are extremely ashamed of their urges? The same could be applied to a whole range of people with rape fantasies or psychopathy or any other fucked-upedness.

And, if there is not a "pedophile mind", what is it that gives people those urges? I agree it's not a disability, but it's also wrong to vilify people for something they can't exactly control.

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

Did you know many pedophiles are adamantly against having sex with kids, and are extremely ashamed of their urges?

did you know that this narrative has typically been used to defend people who have actually raped children? did you know that somebody who feels more disgust and shame than actual pleasure at the thought of having sex with a child may not medically count as a pedophile anyhow?

psychopathy

oh good another not-easy medical construct with infamously hazy criteria. and one that also more often functions as a legal term that obscures a lot of gendered violence... could have picked a better example pal

And, if there is not a "pedophile mind", what is it that gives people those urges?

it's very complex! medical professionals are not in agreement as to what criteria define this "mind" in the first place! which is where equally silly terminology like "ephebophilia" and "hebephilia" comes from! even outside of that, many people who would be popularly described as pedophiles do not actually fit formal medical criteria (such as DSM) for a whole mess of complicated and awful reasons! and anyway, nobody is exactly sure what role socialisation plays! you're kind of stumbling into psychological debates you have no idea about here

I agree it's not a disability

look if it's not a disability then it's not ableist to hate people who want to fuck kids, as you insinuated

it's also wrong to vilify people for something they can't exactly control

it's more wrong to essentialise constructs of sexuality at the expense of child rape victims i feel

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

oh and another thing - "pedophilia" relies on a western construction of childhood that runs parallel to the wider fetishisation of innocence and purity as sexualised characteristics. neither of these things are cultural universals which further complicates any attempt to study pedophilia as a natural object.

7

leftous wrote

Really well put. I agree reducing pedophilia to a simple "sexual preference" really neglects the harm and damage it does.

Pedophiles are people who fetishize innocence and are sexually excited by rape (which is what sex with a child entails). We call out the fetishization of minorities, trans people, etc - this is no different and far more disturbing. :/

1

zorblax wrote (edited )

did you know that somebody who feels more disgust and shame than actual pleasure at the thought of having sex with a child may not medically count as a pedophile anyhow?

does it matter? They'd still be labelled a pedophile by almost anyone you meet.

look if it's not a disability then it's not ableist to hate people who want to fuck kids, as you insinuated

it's not uncommon to see ableist language used in that context.

you're kind of stumbling into psychological debates you have no idea about here

Actually I don't think the exact medical/psychological definition of pedophilia or psychopathy or what-have-you is very important to this debate. What's important is that someone who does nothing wrong to anybody can still considered evil because of something that goes on in their heads, and in particular something that they have no conscious control over.

4

Dumai wrote

They'd still be labelled a pedophile by almost anyone you meet.

which, to me, would seem to demonstrate how shakily constructed a category it actually is, but if you want to take that as a warrant to essentialise sexuality in the service of rape culture then go ahead (disclaimer: do not go ahead. i actually do not want you to do this)

What's important is that someone who does nothing wrong to anybody can still considered evil because of something that goes on in their heads, and in particular something that they have no conscious control over.

people who overtly perpetuate or practice the sexual fetishisation of youth are contributing to rape culture and are definitely doing something wrong, even if they never physically hurt anybody themselves. no matter how many internet edgelords clumsily attempt to naturalise cultures of modern sexuality, this will not stop being the case.

1

zorblax wrote

How about a thought experiment: if someone had extremely vivid thoughts of murdering everyone they'd ever met, for their entire life, but never acted on them and were in fact very normal people outwardly, are they bad people? Do they deserve to be feared?

2

Dumai wrote

depends. what kind of personal history do they have? what sort of cultures do they live with? what is their position within matrices of power? do they get any pleasure out of these thoughts?

it could be that they're somewhere on the anxiety spectrum and that these thoughts are intrusive, meaning they're actually wholly unwanted and upsetting. it could be that they're an abuse victim who uses thoughts of violence as a coping mechanism. it could be that they're a shitty white dude fixated on a violent masculine power fantasy, in which case these thoughts will be connected to their personal racism and sexism.

now here's a thought experiment for you: how about you actually engage with what i've been saying this whole time?

1

zorblax wrote

How can you judge someone for their conscious experience and not their actions?

1

Dumai wrote

do you not see how the two are obviously linked or what

1

zorblax wrote

I can understand how, a posteriori, they're pretty obviously linked.

But it's obviously incredibly wrong to punish someone before they've done anything.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

when did punishment become a part of the conversation?

would you negatively judge somebody who professes racist beliefs without ever "acting on" them (the line between two is probably more blurry than you're assuming)?

1

zorblax wrote

when did punishment become a part of the conversation?

It was always? Or am I totally missing something

would you negatively judge somebody who professes racist beliefs without ever "acting on" them?

beliefs can be changed without intensive therapy. Pedophilia, or psychopathy, or <insert something else awful here> is part of a person and it takes more than an illuminating conversation to change it.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

beliefs can be changed without intensive therapy. Pedophilia, or psychopathy, or <insert something else awful here> is part of a person and it takes more than an illuminating conversation to change it.

given how many people are already trying to define racism as an expression of mental illness or otherwise psychological impulse (much in the same way you are trying to do with pedophilia) we'll see how long this belief lasts but have you ever noticed how ex-white supremecists actually tend to spend a lot of time in therapy? have you ever noticed how overcoming culturally instilled racist beliefs and behaviours actually takes years of effort? what would your opinion be of somebody who doesn't even bother to try because they like themselves that way?

1

zorblax wrote

what your opinion be of somebody who doesn't even bother to try because they like themselves that way?

I'd obviously hate them.

I've only met one pedophile I had any respect for. He really didn't like that part of himself, and tried to suppress it. He got a lot of shit when he told people about it. He's really the only reason I made this comment in the first place, because I know people like him exist and I think they're treated unfairly.

4

zod wrote (edited )

Are you talking from personal experience? Are you a pedophile? How do you know they have no control over their child rape fetish?

1

zorblax wrote

no, but if you know what lainchan is I've been a regular for years and I was there when the whole pedo thing happened.

I've met the whole range, from pedos who say they've raped kids before, to pedos who say they avoid being around kids and read 'loli porn'(which is basically hentai sexualizing children) to get off.

3

zod wrote

I don't know what that is and I'm not going to go looking for a site that caters to child rapists. How can you stand to hang out with those people?

1

zorblax wrote

"caters to child rapists" is a stretch, considering that the whole "pedo thing" was that they were all(eventually) banned for talking about it on the website.

2

zod wrote (edited )

So why did your discussions with admitted child rapists on that chan site lead to you feeling the need to defend pedophiles here?

1

zorblax wrote

because I think it's a thing that people don't think about often enough.

2

zod wrote

I'm so confused.

1

zorblax wrote

I'm just trying to challenge peoples' viewpoints. My own views are usually pretty vague.

5

ziq wrote

Normalizing child rape fetishes isn't challenging, it's repulsive.

1

zorblax wrote

I don't think it's normal. I think it's a severe aberration.

3

ziq wrote

Then why are you saying we should include them more in our circles and why are you spreading the myth that they hold no responsibility for their depraved and dangerous fetish because "they can't help it"?

1

zorblax wrote

Then why are you saying we should include them more in our circles

Go and re-read my comment. These people exist, they will always exist in some form or another, and I think it's wrong to hate them for being the way they are rather than for any actions they have done.

the myth

are you sure it's a myth?

3

ziq wrote

Yes I'm sure pedos are responsible for partaking in their fetish.

I wish people wouldn't spend all that energy normalizing and defending pedos on the internet and then claim they're only 'challenging' us. It would be a lot easier to communicate if you dropped the facade of doublespeak and misdirection and engaged honestly.

0

zorblax wrote

Yes I'm sure pedos are responsible for partaking in their fetish.

partaking is different from having. That's what I'm talking about. Obviously they're responsible for raping kids.

It would be a lot easier to communicate if you dropped the facade of doublespeak and misdirection and engaged honestly.

I literally do not know how to please you.

3

ziq wrote

Engaging in fantasies and viewing pornography is also partaking.

0

zorblax wrote

I agree that viewing physical child pornography is on the same level as rape. But I don't think having fantasies is wronging anybody.

3

ziq wrote

All pornography, including lolicon. Allowing yourself to entertain harmful fantasies of raping children furthers the sexualization of children in society and the abuse of children both physically and mentally. Children are not sex objects. They are not masturbation fodder. Sexualizing them IS NOT harmless.

-1

zorblax wrote

See, this is what I don't get. What is harmful about it? Sure it's disgusting, it's taboo, it obviously is not normal and shouldn't be treated as such. But what is harmful about it? Who does it harm?

4

mofongo wrote

It's not something that would, it's something that will.

I have three opinions regarding pedophilia/acs. The first being that is necessary to protect children from harm and those that would harm them. It's impossible to know who is just waiting for the opportunity to satisfy their desires and its very idealistic to expect for everyone to have full control of their urges. In many cases of child abuse that I have read and heard, the opportunity to be alone with a child was all that was needed, be it a child under their care, younger family members, their own children. When that's not possible For a few dollars, you can go to any third world country and pay cheaply for a child prostitute. Additionally, normalizing pedophilia because is not abuse opens the door to circumstances like "it's ok to leave children with this person, they're a pedophile not an abuser" which will put children at risk as explained above.

The second part is that desire to satisfy these urges lead to the creation of child pornography, drawn or otherwise. In Japan there has been an increase in child rape, and while a casual relationship is hard to prove there's no doubt that their societies casual acceptance of sexualization of children plays a role.

The third part is that pedophile should receive psychological assistance in order to help them better resist their urges and to not put themselves in situations where they could succumb to them. However this online shit show of defending pedos is unproductive to this third part because it normalizes their feelings (and back to beginning).

3

ziq wrote (edited )

It harms children. I feel like you're not reading beyond the first sentence of my replies.

0

zorblax wrote (edited )

how does it harm children? I've read everything you've written multiple times.

4

leftous wrote

Would you call nazis sitting around promoting and fantasizing about killing Jews, or the if the KKK were fantasizing about killing blacks, making cartoons about it, "harmless"?

You have to realize that sexualizing children is violence. And not just against any group - but literally the most vulnerable, innocent, and defenseless group. It is not harmless.

-1

zorblax wrote

I'd call that violence, sure.

I'd call participating in a subculture that sexualizes children violence, sure.

But I wouldn't call having a fetish about child rape to be violence, and I'd call it pedophilia.

3

leftous wrote

So you agree that lolicon and the associated subculture is violent and harmful.

But you don't consider a fetish to commit violence and cause harm (also known as "pedophilia") to be harmful?

-1

zorblax wrote

yeah, that's a good way of putting it.

More importantly I don't think it's right to hate someone just for being fucked in the head. They have to do something, like participate in pedophile subculture or embrace their identity as a pedophile or at the worst actually act on their fetish, to be worthy of hate, in my view.

3

leftous wrote

So if someone said they had a sexual fetish of chopping your head off, decapitating skulls turn them on. You'd say "Hey, at least you haven't chopped my head off yet!" and tell them it's all good?

The reality is it is harmful when someone is driven to violence, no matter how you dress it up. Whether or not you hate someone for being harmful, or try to help them to challenge and destroy these harmful impulses, is an entirely different question.

1

zorblax wrote (edited )

So if someone said they had a sexual fetish of chopping your head off, decapitating skulls turn them on. You'd say "Hey, at least you haven't chopped my head off yet!" and tell them it's all good?

well, yeah, but I get what you mean.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

These people exist, they will always exist in some form or another,

did you miss what i said about how nothing in pedophilia (the medical sexual category or the modern western construct of childhood it depends on) is a universal

i ask because you never responded to it and now you seem to be acting like you didn't read it

0

zorblax wrote (edited )

because I don't think it's worth responding to. If it's not pedophilia it's some other disgusting thing. It's absolutely absurd to think that you can tweak everything just right so that everyone is mentally sound and nobody is internally vile.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

zorblax wrote (edited )

I dunno. Keep going until everyone gets bored? I think it's an interesting conversation.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

zorblax wrote

Of course! I'm learning from this conversation as I go. With a subject like this, in a format like this, the hard part is getting points across clearly, which I think has been the point of this entire comment thread.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

zorblax wrote

maybe. But I think that people like this person, who it's not hard to believe exist, should also not be treated unfairly.

2

Dumai wrote

My own views are usually pretty vague.

this is the first thing you've said in the entire thread that makes any sense to me