Comments

2

kittybecca wrote

As a Jew who lives on Seneca land (because my ancestors had to escape persecution in Hungary and Germany somehow), I think "settler colonialism" is a particularly un-nuanced way of looking at the founding of the state of Israel. Israel was founded by people who, after being expelled from Palestine, lived as constant others throughout the entire world, never being considered full members of their society, always serving as scapegoats, for millennia until the Zionist movement decided (wrongly) that a state was the answer. Israel was founded by people who experienced traumas on top of traumas on top of traumas, and inherited traumas on top of traumas on top of traumas.

European Jews were never real Europeans; we have never been full members of European societies. Not only that, but around 50% of Israelis are either Sephardic or Mizrahi, meaning that their ancestors most likely came there to escape persecutions elsewhere in the Middle East.

Israel is an apartheid state, as it fits the legal definition of apartheid, but to call it "settler colonialism" is to equate Jews with British and Dutch capitalists who colonized the world for purely financial benefit, which is patently false. Jews went there because they were fighting for their lives, to escape from their persecutors. There was no equivalent of the Dutch or British East India Company; there was simply a desire to escape constant and intense persecution.

1

kittybecca wrote (edited )

The important thing is it's not up to a bunch of people on the internet how Palestine should manage itself, it's up to Palestine.

This is exactly one of the arguments Israel uses to shut critics up: it's not up to the rest of the world to determine how they manage themselves. This fails to take into account the victims of Israel's alleged "self-government", and the same is true of any form of statism.

And it's important to remember that the overwhelming majority of Israelis did not move to the area out of a desire to colonize and rule over "the natives", but rather out of a desire to escape brutal persecution and often certain death in the West, the Middle East and North Africa. They were escaping intense persecutions of the sort that no white Western gentile can understand. This doesn't justify apartheid, but it does put the whole "settler colonialism" argument in perspective, adding a lot of cruel irony to the way that actual white Western colonizers conceptualize Israel. Unlike the colonizers of the Americas, Israelis were mostly refugees.

6

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Give it time. It took a really long time for the Fediverse to take off, and everyone used to talk about it like it was a pipe dream.

4

kittybecca wrote (edited )

I think this is a debate over semantics more than substance, where "pro-democracy" anarchists are using a different definition of democracy than "anti-democracy" anarchists, but maybe I'm wrong. The truth is that democracy signifies lots of mutually exclusive things, as Orwell pointed out, so it's better to talk about specifics than big abstract words with different meanings to everyone.

9

kittybecca wrote (edited )

I slept several times in Union Station, where I was constantly told I had to leave, but would often find a place to hide, usually in the doorways which were still extremely cold, and talk to other homeless people. Union Station is right across the street from Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, members of Congress sleep in their offices, again, right across the street from where homeless people are trying to find shelter. Oh, also, a homeless encampment near Union Station was torn up by police, all the tents ripped up, etc..

When I got off the street, under less-than-ideal circumstances, I read soon after about the newly Republican-controlled Congress cutting funding for LGBT homeless youth. There already wasn't enough.

Being homeless was unbelievably dehumanizing, and things like this just rub salt in the wound.

1

kittybecca wrote

Of course it's a good idea and of course it's fundamental. That's kind of what I was getting at, though - what he's saying there is obvious, and no one who listens to him will disagree with it.

Granted, his opinions on trans issues are terrible and wrong, but they're equally basic/obvious questions.

5

kittybecca wrote (edited )

More brilliant, never-before-heard wisdom from the man who posed the groundbreaking philosophical question, "If trans people are really rebelling against gender then how come they're reinforcing it?" and iconoclastically stated, "If trans people were really revolutionary they wouldn't participate in the capitalist system by taking hormones." I can definitely see how combining Marxist philosophy with psychoanalysis could lead one to the conclusion that nation-states are bad. Truly the most relevant thinker of our time.

2

kittybecca wrote (edited )

Oh, that begs the question, are all anarchists anti-Semites (from the perspective of right-wing Zionists)?

Right-wing Zionists do not have a coherent theory with which to engage topics like this, other than whatever silences dissent. They are not acting in good faith.

"Left-wing Zionists" are a contradiction, and their willingness to blindly follow the bad-faith arguments of right-wing Zionists while preventing any meaningful action against Israeli oppression of Palestinians makes this plain as day. In this way, liberal Zionists (the most appropriate term for them) are like liberals everywhere.

1

kittybecca wrote

"And while many people said anti-Semitism is a growing problem in their countries -- to the extent that 40% said Jews were at risk of racist violence in their countries and half said their governments should do more to fight anti-Semitism -- substantial minorities blamed Israel or Jews themselves for anti-Semitism."

"And nearly one in five (18%) said anti-Semitism in their countries was a response to the everyday behavior of Jewish people."

"In Poland and Hungary, about four out of 10 people said Jews have too much influence in business and finance around the world."

"Roughly one out of three people there said Jews were too influential in political affairs around the world, and more than a quarter of Poles and Hungarians said they had too much influence on the media."

"A third of Austrians said Jews have too much influence in finance, while a quarter of French and German respondents said so."

"About one in five people in all three countries said Jews had too much influence in media, and a quarter said they had too much influence on wars and conflicts."

"A third of Europeans said commemorating the Holocaust distracts from other atrocities today, with higher than average numbers of Germans, Austrians, Poles and Hungarians stating that."

2

kittybecca wrote (edited )

One representative said that “people with moving male parts would be housed with men,” while another said “it depends on how far along the person is in the process.”

Note that (unfortunately) a lot of recovery institutions discriminate in exactly the same way. The Oxford House, for example. Addiction recovery for trans people sucks, especially with how religious it is in this country.

Some said trans people would be required to stay in private rooms.

I've always been OK with this but yes it's fucked up and shaming.

2

kittybecca wrote

Se mi bone kaptas la sencon, mi pensas, ke "al kiuj" estas senintenca hispanismo - la verbo malami ĉiam regas akuzativan objekton, do gramatike devus esti "Ni ja malamas / (tiujn) kiuj nin suferigas."

Tamen iuj opinias, ke 'je' povas anstataŭi la akuzativon, do por konservi la nunan skandon, tio eblas. Ankaŭ kompreneble ekzistas la eksperimenta prepozicio 'na'.