GaldraChevaliere

7

GaldraChevaliere wrote

It isn't that you're unwelcome, kin. It's that the space is going to put oppressed populations first, because it's needed. The important thing to keep in mind is that these complaints are not personal to you, and aren't intended to target you specifically but rather the privileged class to which you belong, and there are axes on which you are oppressed, chiefly sexuality, but white gay dudes as a class are also known for kicking down and selling out LBT folks and gay men of color with startling regularity, something white lesbians aren't exactly clean of towards bisexuals, women of color and transfolk either. Working to undermine those hierarchies is the path to trust, and nobody's going to have a problem with you if you're not doing shit like making weird theories about why transwomen really want breasts or how indenture was somehow any worse than the protracted and industrialized system of slavery.

6

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I don't think I implied she isn't good enough for me. I'm honestly really, really happy with my relationships and a lot of my anxieties with her are more about how she must see me given how I'm younger and less useful than I should be, and I have that anxiety about most people I'm intimate with because all my partners are older than me. I'm excited for this, but also scared because it means letting someone in and trusting them to do right by me She's kind and beautiful and the way she can make me hers is just really...something. But I'm scared because it's moving fast and what if I'm not good enough or too young or I become a boring toy? It's really hard for me to accept that people just, I dunno, like me.

5

GaldraChevaliere wrote (edited )

before MHA - Shonen is stupid, it's just screaming idiots targeted towards dumbass little boys

after MHA - I want All Might to carry me around on his biceps and tell me I can be a hero too!

Reply to comment by /u/Hyolobrika in I have an idea by /u/Hyolobrika

4

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I dunno about 'rational skeptics', but in most circles that have emotional and social depth exceeding a teacup, talking shit about someone's past and traumas when it's not relevant to the conversation is what in the jargon we call 'a low fucking blow'. If your 'reasoned' argument can't stand on its own and you have to resort to something like that, maybe you're just a craven who needs to try to hurt people to feel big.

Also, like, that's my other point I wanted to get to but didn't have time for. You've got this cultish devotion to Reason as an ideal, one that necessarily requires leaps of faith and proselytism to maintain. I don't believe in Reason, because anyone with a familiarity with game theory knows there's no such thing as a rational actor, one who will take the most beneficial known action every time or accept the most functional argument. People are flawed and their experiences are subjective, and the majority of things you've likely come to view as ineffable truth are in fact social constructs with no material reality. That, friend, is called being Spooked.

You can't escape ideology and you can't escape your subjective experiences, only modify them with new experiences applied, and there's no way to be an impartial and objective observer of any phenomena, whether social or material. What most people do is learn to live with that and just run off of what they've experienced and collaborate with others for mutual understanding. What people like you do is force, usually violently, your beliefs on others and insist yours is the one true way of viewing things and all else is irrational, as if a world where we toil for 12-16 hours a day for not enough food to pay rent and eat at the same time is a rational one in the first place.

5

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Lack of trust in the existing structures and 'leading' figures. Reddit's a capitalist website run by people with confirmed fascist sympathies, and problems are only ever dealt with when they impact profit, but left-wing and minority-led subs are routinely singled out for deletion or moderation. The ones that exist are largely headed by people with some serious issues regarding those same minorities, so folk went off and did their own thing, and here we are.

Reply to comment by /u/Freux in [POLICY] Acceptable usernames by /u/Freux

3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

It isn't, the point I'm getting across is that by enshrining rules we already consider a matter of courtesy/decency, we open ourselves to some de jure bullshit. With formalized systems of law/policy as opposed to the consensus decisions we've been making, we get situations like what Ziq described where people try to shut down criticism through policy instead of actually sorting out their beef, and overwhelmingly the bureaucratic types will be the ones taking advantage of it as a way of punishing opposition.Guess what large cohort of our userbase are heavy into bureaucracy.

Reply to comment by /u/Freux in [POLICY] Acceptable usernames by /u/Freux

3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I'm saying I don't feel like violating someone's autonomy for something like KGBGoon420, but the shitters weed themselves out in a matter of minutes. Nobody who actually wants to participate is gonna name themselves XxCoonTown13XX, but the ones that pull that shit to begin with have zero impulse control and get themselves nuked within a day at most, but like yeah, we should be blasting them on the spot anyway. I just don't think that basic level of standards needs to be enshrined, it's something that's already getting done.

What I'm more worried about is another idiot faction war like we had when the transhumanists lost their pretty little heads over primitivists and really just anyone with ecological concerns at all existing on the site, and some stupid conflict like that hiding behind policies to get away with it. Like, the first part of my name is a direct reference to my religious beliefs, which are unfortunately co-opted to a pretty large degree by racists. I'd bet a bj if some fedora had any awareness of religions that aren't abrahamic they'd try to pull some "see see it's a dog whistle" shit with it.

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I try to give the benefit of the doubt with stupid names. It's not like the stupid ones last all that long before showing their hand, and I've seen just as shitty behavior over longer periods of time from 'legit' people. Remember Connie?

5

GaldraChevaliere wrote

This is a better way than I could've put it. I'm concerned with my immediate environment and the environments I spend time in, and ultimately actions I take are to serve the needs of those places. But my environment, even without globalisation, would still be shaped and moulded by the world around them. Actions have to be considered in how they ripple out and impact other environments outside your own, or how going-ons in other environments impact yours down the line.

4

GaldraChevaliere wrote (edited )

If you identify with centrism, you're essentially admitting to moral cowardice. By upholding the status quo and insisting on 'peaceful debate' between sides with a distinct power imbalance socially and politically, where the politically more powerful side has a vested interest in killing the weaker, you're still ultimately enabling that more powerful side regardless of your social policies, which ultimately serve only to keep you comfortable with yourself rather than pursuing any sort of genuine liberation.

The Left has hardly any more sympathy for the Center than it does for the Right, because the Center will always aid whoever has more power and even if that were us, many of us would still be appalled at how utterly cowardly and submissive that behavior is. I'd go further into depth, but I'm late as fuck for something, so I'll respond to your next post later.

E: Back. Consider the scenario of an old woman falling down and being unable to stand without her cane, which has skittered away into the street. She cannot save herself and she's calling for help, but most people are walking away. Of those people ignoring her, there will be essentially two rationales among them.

One subgroup, the 'extreme' one, will ignore her because they believe that to help her in her weakness would be to enable her weakness, and that if she deserved to walk, she would try to stand up herself. The other group, the 'moderate' one, simply don't want to get involved. They're too busy or they don't want to confront what they're seeing, so they just keep walking and hope that she'll eventually be helped or will find a way to help herself. The moderate group might even be afraid of the extreme group punishing or ridiculing them for stopping for the old woman, so they keep going out of fear.

To the old woman, there is no difference between these two groups, however much they may see a difference between themselves. To her, there is no 'extremist' or 'moderate', there are only callous young people who care nothing for her plight, and so ignore her and leave her in indignity. She might do everything in her power to get up, clutching at street lamps or crawling into the road to get her cane back, but each attempt is a dangerous and sapping endeavor that drains more of her strength for a minimal chance of escape from her predicament. There's even a risk that the extreme group will kick her cane away or step on her hands or push her back down again. So, as much as she is trying, she simply cannot stand up on her own without help.

The moderate, while convinced of his moral superiority to the extremist, still does the extremists' work by refusing to help the old woman, and thus rationalizes it to himself to be spared of the guilt and culpability for his inaction. Slowly but surely, he adopts the extremist's mindset that if the old woman truly deserved help, she would adequately perform to the moderate's expectations, and because she didn't (and couldn't), there must be nothing wrong after all.

Using this metaphor, you can see how this dynamic would apply to class and race relations. The overclass, believing the underclass deserves its suffering, will actively thwart attempts for the underclass to save itself, and the moderate in fear of the overclass will assist in this process, adopting the overclass's beliefs while trying to maintain a sense of morality in the scenario, which ultimately boils down to one of two beliefs. Either the overclass is too strong, or the overclass is righteous. Neither is a helpful mindset to the underclass, and so the underclass resents the moderate as much or even more than their oppressor, while the moderate cannot understand why.