ShadesPath

ShadesPath wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in The Problem with Hierarchy by ziq

The issue isn't that you're a problematic person but rather your politics and online activity are points of contention that draws negativity merely by mentioning your name simply because you have a group of people dedicated to seeing your name dragged the moment it pops up.

This is a long way of saying that you yourself aren't the issue but the people who don't like you are.

1

ShadesPath wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in The Problem with Hierarchy by ziq

Every time someone cites you they get shit on though. Andrew played it smart and let your criticisms be voiced without the redditor crowd going full deplatform mode after seeing your name.

4

ShadesPath wrote

Remember when atheists decided to become "militant" because apparently only accepting facts and logic requires you to aggressively proselytize your lack of faith to other people? And they were also really really against feminism for some odd reason? And they disliked the gsrm for even odder reasons? Yeah... good times.

3

ShadesPath wrote

Reply to Explaining by ziq

I understand the joke but I need to ask what's happening in the Seinfeld scene?

3

ShadesPath wrote (edited )

This seems to be another case of shit being made too complicated and too personal. What you and Lettuce don't seem to understand is that being an anarchist isn't some contest, it isn't even a goal to achieve, it's just a thing that you are regardless of what you do or don't do because anarchism itself doesn't have rules that you should abide by. As you yourself pointed out, it isn't a god that you should serve, but at the same time it isn't a thing that can or should serve you no more so than you existing can be something that "serves" you. It's simple: Do you want a world where people don't have to form hierarchies and rule each other? Yes? Then you're an anarchist. Whatever the hell you do or don't is merely a reflection of your present circumstances. Just live, man. There's no such thing as a shit or true anarchist.

3

ShadesPath wrote

Do I think it's misogynist to make fun of Amber for shitting on someone's bed? No. Do I think it's misogynist to treat her like some devil that Depp was just powerless in the face of? Absolutely. I've had to say to people that Johnny isn't a victim of abuse the way regular folks are. He had enough power to stop whatever violence was being done to him and to never have it done to him again. The vast majority of abuse victims don't have nowhere near the same level of power in their relationships. Furthermore, reactive abuse (assuming it was reactive) is still abuse and his participation in it means he's an abuser and makes Amber a victim of said abuse. It bothers me a lot that people see the after effects of a feedback loop of violence and only blame it on one person.

3

ShadesPath wrote

There are tons of afab queens, actually, to the point that their presence and number in the drag community is a point of some controversy. The ability to exaggerate their feminity in a myriad of ways that they don't get to on a regular basis is part of the reason why queening attracts women. So the lack of amab kings is just... odd... Given that cismen have as much reason to do king work as much as ciswomen do for queen work. So far my thoughts on the issue haven't stopped connecting to the other stuff you've mentioned so far but I've also stumbled on the the possibility that maybe cismen see their masculinity differently than ciswomen see their femininity. If ciswomen feel so much freedom from doing drag femme performance then why not men for drag masc performance? Plus there seems to be a difference between drag king performance vs. what's considered masculine to the general cisman public, there's a certain lack of "male (read: cisman) gaze" to drag kinging that changes how it defines masculine performance (especially since we're talking about masculinity in a space dominated by queer folk).

3