RedEmmaSpeaks

1

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

We're wired for tribal band-style living and raising the kids collectively is a major part of it. The idea is that every person in the tribe, regardless of age, is considered part of it and the main rule of tribes is that you take care of your members.

In any case, it's a good idea for the simple reason of, well, kids may be the future, but that doesn't change the fact that they can be a pain in the ass. Loving someone doesn't change the fact that caring for them is, at times, a difficult and unpleasant job. It would probably do a lot of good for mothers if when they were too exhausted physically and emotionally to take care of the kids, they can let someone else look after them for a while. The understanding is, of course, when the other person is at their wits' end with their kid, she'll return the favor.

A good example of how this would work is with elephants. The whole group helps out with the babies with everyone in the herd serving as parents. Often when a female elephant is around the age of five (an elephant doesn't reach adulthood until they are ten) they'll start helping out as babysitters to the young ones. It gives the babies' moms a break and it helps the babysitter prepare for her future motherhood. "The old take care of the young and the young take care of the old," is a pretty stable cycle that we were fools to abandon.

Oh and RosaReborn, while you have some good points, keep in mind that most anarchists tend to be of the "Small is beautiful" mindset when it comes to our visions of an ideal world. The bigger something gets, the more needlessly complicated it becomes or in other words, the more parts a machine has, the more ways it has of breaking down.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Again, with the anti-Idpol, all those smug cisgender brosocialists lecturing women and minorities as to why they must simply put aside their concerns for the revolution, as if when we've overthrown the government or society, then we'll look at our checklist and start working on "Ending racism forever!" or something. White men can ignore Idpol--heck they benefit from Idpol--but everyone else doesn't have that luxury. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, Idpol shapes the lives of Women, LGBT, and PoC.

I don't know when I'll ever stop posting a link to this cartoon, but it remains so apt: https://coinsh.red/p/Liberal_Intellectual_On_Why_We_Should_Ignore_Identity_Politics.png

I'll agree with the Brosocialists that class is a major source of oppression, one we should devote our lives to overthrowing, but it is majorly simplistic to assume it affects all groups of people equally. Like LBJ said, "White poverty is not the same as Black poverty."

The central ideal behind the Left is that everyone should feel free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as it harms no one else in the process. Idpol isn't a distraction from the cause; Idpol IS the cause in a nutshell. A liberation doesn't count unless it liberates everyone.

6

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Anyone who fanboys Stalin, is sketchy. There's no way around it. The guy was a monster. Even Lenin basically said, regarding Stalin, "Eff that guy! No matter what, don't let that guy come into power." When Lenin, who was no prize pig himself, says that, you should pay attention.

For the record, I am able to sympathize with Lenin a bit more in that he seemed to genuinely believe in the ideals of Communism. He claimed that this whole "strongman imposing on everyone" was a transitory state as the structures of the State were broken down, until the State became truly Communist with the common people running the show. I don't know if he truly intended that or if Soviet Russia would have ever transitioned into his depiction of the ideal communist state. I do know that the forces he was up against, a brutal Civil War, the fighting that comes when you're a rebel trying to overthrow someone, and Capitalist nations doing everything they can to sabotage your fledgling government, which makes me sympathize with Lenin a bit more. The toll all of that would have taken on a newfound country is profound.

Though I've often used the metaphor that Lenin is a rabid badger, but Stalin was a rabid Kodiak bear. Both are bad, but there's a difference in scale. Lenin may have actually agreed in the words he propagated, but Stalin, I honestly think that he was just a sick bastard, who probably would have been a nightmare of a person regardless of ideology. Put a germ in the right culture or the right conditions and it will spread and unfortunately, the Soviet Russia of the time made a perfect culture for Stalin to come into power.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

And hey, it might do a disabled person some good to have a job, even if it's just a few hours a day, depending on how they're feeling/doctor's appointments/etc. But it should be the disabled person's choice AND you don't pay them pennies for their work; they should get a proper wage like everyone else. Though the people who employ them will probably do all this caterwauling how it's simply unfair to pay them a full wage and how they'll be unable to employ disabled people as a result, and Blah-Blah-Blah, but if you need to exploit an entire class of people just to get by, you're a shit company run by shitty people.

Though like I said, the sad part is that $7.80 is roughly the American minimum wage, so Americans are probably being exploited even more than the Aussies in the video.

For the record, I'm on the Autism Spectrum, so I am disabled as well.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

That's pretty much been my experience. In conversations, you don't have to really dig that deep to realize that "Working Class" is code for "White Men." Apparently Women and PoC don't work: we make our lives off welfare and accusing innocent White Men of sexual assault. Hence why there's no reason their concerns ever enter into any discussion of the Working Class.

5

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote (edited )

Sounds like a variation on Brosocialists, where smug, entitled cisgender white boys patiently explain to women and minorities about how we must simply must put aside our struggles for the sake of the revolution and not get hung up on all the Idpol business. It's easy for them to say that, since they are not directly affected by Idpol and often benefit from it. Everyone else is drafted into the Idpol fight from day one.

Though I doubt this guy has much love for the weaksauce, milquetoast Democratic Party, I felt this cartoon aptly summed up entirely too many Brosocialist discussions: https://coinsh.red/p/Liberal_Intellectual_On_Why_We_Should_Ignore_Identity_Politics.png

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Make sure that they know that Racism isn't simply a matter of disliking someone because of the color of their skin, an issue akin to liking blondes as opposed to redheads, but something deeper interwoven into the fabric of society. You can be a good person, but still find yourself parroting racist rhetoric because when a message is repeated over and over to you, invariably, you'll inadvertently repeat it back.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

While the workshops should talk about obvious racism like lynchings or the KKK, I also feel the kids would benefit from some of the subtler forms, the microaggressions. What does it feel like if you hardly ever saw people who looked like you in movies or TV? What would it be like if the few PoC characters you did see, were thugs or slaves? There's some very real pain in knowing that White and Male is considered the default, and everyone outside the default, is some mysterious other whose ways cannot be fathomed. Stories about White Heroes are seen as universal, but stories with Black Heroes struggle to be seen as something other than a bizarre niche genre that you simply can't expect White People to enjoy/understand, even though PoC manage to understand and enjoy stories full of White People.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

So you feel that the suffering of people being referred to as cis, is equivalent to the bigotry and pain the N-Word carries for Black people. I'd say something about False Equivalence, but that term feels mild, sort of like describing the slaves brought to America as involuntary immigrants; no matter what way you put it, it's a gross understatement of the horrors they went through.

In any case, the way you can flat-out type "cis," but cannot type out the N-Word in its entirety, does convey that one term is seen as a far greater slur than the other.

Contrary to your beliefs, cis isn't a term solely for straight people. Cis is the counterpart of trans. If you identify as the gender chosen for you, you are cis. Cis and trans are referring to gender identity, while Hetero or LGBT refers to sexual attraction. A Straight man can qualify as cis, but so can a Gay man. There is no slur about it.

In any case, given the many pejorative terms we've given Transgender individuals and the fact that Transgender people have the highest suicide rate of any group and are more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than any other minority group, I don't think them referring to us as cis is quite the crime against humanity you make it out to be. Due to persecution from cisgender society, a transgender person's life span averages out to be in the neighborhood of 30-35 years. So forgive me if I don't feel that being called cis is the worst possible offense ever.

1

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I'm not like a huge Soros fanboy, but I do not get the Right's fearmongering about him. He has the right to spend his money how he likes, even if it is :gasp: advocating for political issues that matter to him.

Yet somehow he's the Ultimate Evil, whereas the Koch Brothers do the same thing on a much larger scale and have effectively made the country work for them, but it's okay because they are filled with the Salt-of-the-Earth, Jes' Plain Folks knowledge possessed by a pair of sons of privilege from long lines of sons of privilege.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

That's the strategy the businesses have been using forever. With every new regulation that advocates "Hey, maybe you should lessen the odds of your workers dying on the job?" or "Hey, maybe you should make your project safer for the consumers?" they throw massive hissies and wail and whinge about how doing X would destroy the business, put workers on the streets, and cats and dogs will be sleeping together, and blah-blah-blah...

Here's the shocking truth: they are always wrong. It turns out that consumers tend to be more willing to buy a product if they're certain of its safety (thus making the corporation more money) and will pay a little more, if it better helps out the workers.

Workers will also be more productive and have better morale, if they don't have to worry about them or someone else getting maimed or killed at work. It turns out if the the higher-ups are basically like, "Meh. We lose one, we can find ten desperate schmoes willing to take their place, so it's no loss," this feeling spills over onto the workers and they will find it increasingly difficult to give a shit about a job that doesn't give a shit about them.

But though they are always wrong, media/culture still acts like the argument has merit.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Ran a search on the book and the author via Google. Corey Savage has been a columnist for the MRA shitblog "Return of Kings" and has participated in many alt-Right podcasts. From the looks of it, you'd be wise to stay away from him. He probably approaches this so-called primitive lifestyle from the stereotype of manly caveman kills mammoth for his woman who worships him and would die without him, rather than the more nuanced and more accurate perspective, given by anthropologists.

Primitive times wasn't "Manly man dominates all, including women, child, and Earth." The bulk of the diet would have supplied by women, because hunting deer and mammoths or whatever, is hard, chancy work. So they likely would have relied on foraging for the bulk of their diet. They wouldn't be vegetarians--when meat was around, they ate it, and they also ate fish, eggs, and milk--but again, hunting is chancy business.

Also studies have shown that tribal men and women had roughly the same standing, so it wasn't just He-Man bossing everyone else around. And again, the relationship they had with the world around them, was probably less about dominance and a more balanced, equal view where nature gives them what they need to survive and in turn, they give back to nature, in a cycle that goes on and on.

6

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Yeah, I find conspiracy theories related to the MLK shooting more plausible. The US had a long history of doing everything they could to stop King, including not warning him about threats on his life, even though they knew damn well those threats were legitimate.

JFK...I believe Oswald did it. I understand why conspiracies persist, though. It seems inconceivable that the well-educated scion of a wealthy family, currently serving as the most powerful man in the world, gets taken out by a total loser mama's boy who failed at everything, except assassinating the presidency.

The truth is, if you look at history, pretty much all presidential assassins, were losers, complete and total losers who had one stroke of luck at the worst possible moment. The only one who doesn't qualify as total loser, is John Wilkes Booth who was making a successful living as an actor, though he acted all put-upon about people calling him cowardly for shooting an unarmed man in the back of the head while he was enjoying a silly comedy.

Also, people romanticize Kennedy entirely too much. Remember despite whatever liberal stuff he said and did, he was a staunch cold warrior through and through. But the painful truth of the matter is that political power and wealth doesn't make you bulletproof. The bullets fired from Oswald's thirteen dollar rifle, couldn't know that they were being aimed at the president and decided to object out of moral concerns. The truth is, bullets follow a trajectory, whether they're aimed at a wall or the president.