#Political ideology

[taliabhattwrites]

While I'm still focusing on finishing my book and my essay series on understanding TERFs, I wrote a quick, bite-sized post on one of the most common gender-conservative temper-tantrums expressed as a pithy three-word shibboleth. We take a harsh look at the motivations and assumptions underlying this mindset, and what people really mean when they assert "sex is real" as an antagonistic principle to transsexual existence.

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that intersectionality hurts or advances activism; for example let's say a climate change organization calling for a ceasefire?

Both.

In its positive aspects, intersectionality is grounded in reciprocal solidarity. It is an ideological and philosophical position that we are all connected and "no man is an island, entire of itself...Any man's death diminishes me/Because I am involved in mankind."

It is also a very pragmatic understanding that there aren't enough of us to win on our own. In addition to the concrete analysis of political struggle that we all share common enemies and have overlapping interests, the fractured nature of human society and identities means that coalition-building isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

In its negative aspects, intersectionality results in this weird, toxic narrowing of social movements to a point where only the most oppressed people possible are allowed to be in charge and make decisions and speak for the movement, and everyone else is a guilt-ridden privileged outsider who needs to shut the fuck up and lower their hands and listen and not make it about them - but only after they donate their time and money.

This is pretty much the opposite of what intersectionality was originally meant to convey: the whole point is that everyone exists in different positions on the various axes of oppression, discrimination, etc. (and these positions can change pretty damn quickly), and thus depending on the issue, certain people might have more of a lived experience and need to be listened to and have greater needs and need to have their agenda items prioritized, and who those people are going to be is fluid and dynamic rather than fixed.

And this brings us back to my earlier thing about reciprocal solidarity. I completely reject the notion that I exist within social movements solely as an ally to other people, because in truth I participate in these movements in no small part because I need help from other people on a whole host of issues. However, I remain in coalition when it comes to other issues (especially those in which my personal constellation of intersectionality puts me in a position of relative privilege), both out of a humanistic understanding that their lives and needs are equally important and out of that pragmatic understanding that if I help them on their stuff, they'll return the favor when it comes to my stuff. And over time, the experience of being in coalition will expand people's mindsets on issues that don't directly affect them and get them to act in solidarity more consistently.

And that's what I think is so good about social democracy and similar movements that have a comprehensive political "line" or policy agenda, because if we sit down and engage in good faith in democratic coalition-building negotiations where everyone understands what they are getting and what they are giving and that everyone gets a say but not an exclusive one, then we short-circuit this kind of toxic, self-destructive behavior and can move on to doing the work that needs to be done.

[ticklingtimetickstotest]

[hezigler]

The conscious rational mind is a secondary mental function. The mind chooses what feels right to it emotionally. Then, the rational mind takes over to --- well, rationalize the decision chosen by passion. This is why a good education should inculcate students with a passion for the Truth, along with critical thinking skills.

Life is complicated. So is finding the Truth in life. The Truth is often composed of many facts that are true. But taken individually, a fact may not on its own be indicative of the total Truth itself.

Full disclosure: Much as this posting may appear to be inviting dialog, it is not. Neither is it meant to be a declaration of my politics. My politics are too deeply rooted in my passion for Truth to be limited by ideology. That's not to say that all my posts are the product of reason in the search of Truth. Despite my advanced age and attendant health problems, I'm still in possession of a sense of humor. Both my health problems and my sense of humor have been greatly aided by being in my state's medical cannabis program. So, I'm very stoner friendly. I do occasionally free associate while writing, like I was noodling riffs on a horn. Like any honest writer may admit, I write to please myself.

[mcsquared789]

You know what?

This is probably the last time I will make/repost something related to US politics, but I want everyone to at least watch and share this video. A LOT of this is relevant to the outcome of the election, and why there seems to be so many people out there in your demographic that do not share your values. It was made 5 years ago, but I think it is going to be one of the most valuable resources that needs to be shared in the next few years.

You might as well subscribe to the rest of the channel too, it’s a little depressing but heavily important. It’s also important to distinguish — most conservatives are not active fascists, and they don’t want to be associated with them. You will know the difference if you ever see it for yourself, so give others some grace (while still staying true to who you are).

[bizarreauhavre]

The leftist, (la gauchiste), experimental film, 2024.

[philosophicalconservatism]

Political and social ideologies do not deliver what they promise, but what they prioritize. In light of that reality, perhaps it can be said that the ideology of Socialism does indeed “work” after all.  What is Socialism's highest priority? It is not liberty, nor is it the best interest of “the working class”. The greatest priority of Socialism is the elimination of “inequality”, which actually means: the destruction of the wealth and productivity of the rich. Thus under Socialism everyone becomes equally poor. And the working class become much poorer than they had been, because the capital and productivity of the wealthy which lead to a higher compensation and quality of life is gone.

What wealth remains is controlled by the political leaders. But if that is the case, it would seem to some people that we had not eliminated inequality at all. Yet those people do not understand that the Socialist is only concerned about inequality amongst the common citizens. The political leaders don’t count. If they do count, then he must change his entire calculus for creating an equal society.  The state cannot hold all the cards.

[depressionstudies]

they have been misled, but, remember, the ones you support are only a little better

[adhoc-exanimo]

I really hope that all that is happening in this world will radicalise the young, but saying that as a radical myself, remember people come and go, it is never about one person. Its about systems and information, true or false. What is believed becomes reality, sadly enough.

[the-anarcho-occultist]

Forget elections or ideologies or whatever: the right to lead the country should be decided by whoever can solve my riddles three.

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that fascism arises from economic crises?

It's a bit more complicated than a unicausal explanation, but I would argue that they are a necessary but not sufficient factor.

There is an old phrase on the Left that "anti-semitism is the socialism of fools;" which sometimes results in a kind of vulgar Marxist variety of conspiracy theory in which all forms of hatred and bigotry are the result of malign forces in the ruling class trying to distract and divide and inclulcate false consciousness among the masses.

According to this train of thought, all forms of discrimination and oppression are the result of capitalism, and once the Revolution comes, then racism and sexism and homophobia, etc. will all come tumbling down and we will all live in unity and equality and harmony. I think this particular school of thought is badly misguided and has been responsible for quite a bit of the Left's historical weaknesses and blindspots.

However, I think there is something to the idea of the original saying, in that I think a lot of the impetus for reactionary movements comes from an inchoate feeling that something is wrong with society and culture, that is turned into not just incorrect but malicious explanations of what the problems are and what the causes of those problems are, in order to radicalize people into joining hateful movements. It's not that different from how ideological frameworks function normally in a Geertzian sense, just done for darker and more violent purposes.

Here's where I think the economy comes in. It is true that there are always going to be some people with extreme reactionary beliefs, but how welcoming society is to their recruitment and other activities does I think depend on how many people are feeling desperate and let down by traditional sources of authority and willing to give "alternative" voices a hearing. Often but not always, the state and direction of the economy has a lot to do with this feeling of desperation - it's not an accident that in recent decades, we've seen the flourishing of reactionary politics following major recessions or in places that have been on the economic decline.

Again, this isn't a 1:1 thing, nor are a lot of the converts among the poorest and most desperate in society, but I do think that general impressions about the state of the economy are a major component of the motivating sense of desperation, alienation, and a breakdown of trust in institutions.

[bmtrs2426]

Materialismo Dialético Revolucionário 😮😱😲⚙️🔨🔫🟥🟥🟥🟥🔥🔥🔥

[tmarshconnors]

Stop Using "Nazi" Out of Context!

Today's polarised political climate, it’s become all too common to see accusations being thrown around with little regard for their actual meaning. One of the most alarming trends is the misuse of the word "Nazi" to discredit or silence opposing viewpoints. In Germany, this is particularly evident when discussing the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Many supporters of the AfD are often labeled as Nazis, but this oversimplification is not only unfair but also dangerous.

As someone living in the UK who supports the Alternative for Germany (AfD), I find it frustrating that political discourse so often descends into name-calling and false associations. Simply supporting a political party like AfD, which focuses on issues like national sovereignty, immigration control, and Euroscepticism. Nobody with these values should ever be called “Nazi”

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is a right-wing political party that advocates for stricter immigration controls, preservation of national identity, and skepticism towards the European Union. It appeals to those who feel that traditional political parties have ignored their concerns—especially about issues like immigration, national sovereignty, and economic policy.

Seriously what I ask you what has that got to do with being a Nazi?!?! Oh I know. I shall tell you NOTHING!

Us AfD supporters come from diverse backgrounds. Some are disillusioned former voters of centrist parties who feel that their views are no longer represented by the political mainstream. Others are concerned about the cultural and economic impacts of mass migration. Still, others are simply advocates of a more limited government and national pride.

None of these positions automatically equate to Nazism. In fact, they represent opinions that are shared by many people across Europe and the world, regardless of their political alignment.

Why "Nazi" is a Dangerous Label?

I don’t know why you wouldn’t know why it’s dangerous but for the less educated out of The term "Nazi" refers to members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), led by Adolf Hitler, responsible for one of the darkest chapters in human history the Holocaust and World War II. To casually throw around such a loaded term diminishes the horrors that actual Nazis inflicted and distorts historical memory. It also shuts down meaningful discussion.

Labeling AfD supporters as Nazis is a form of intellectual laziness. It avoids engaging with the real issues they care about and reduces complex political debates to crude name-calling. This tactic not only alienates people who might be open to dialogue, but it also entrenches divisions and fuels resentment.

Moreover, calling someone a Nazi is an accusation with serious implications. In Germany, Nazism is not just a political slur it carries legal weight. The country has strict laws against Nazi symbols, speech, and activities, which makes the label even more inflammatory. If every right-wing or nationalist stance is equated with Nazism, it dilutes the power of these laws and makes it harder to identify actual neo-Nazis who do pose a threat.

A REAL THREAT!

It’s vital to differentiate between political disagreement and extremism. Not every conservative or nationalist is an extremist. AfD supporters, like those of any political party, have a range of motivations and beliefs.

Many are simply frustrated with the status quo and seek change through democratic means. They participate in elections, engage in policy debates, and advocate for their vision of Germany’s future—just as supporters of other parties do. Political disagreement isn’t extremism. Far from it.

I genuinely can’t believe I have to explain this but the problem with labelling AfD supporters as Nazis is that it dismisses their legitimate concerns out of hand. Immigration, national identity, and economic sovereignty are valid topics for debate, and dismissing them as fascist talking points only serves to deepen the divide between different segments of society.

You MUST understand the political landscape of 21st-century Germany is not the same as it was in the 1930s. Comparing today’s AfD to the NSDAP of Hitler's era is misleading and historically inaccurate. While the AfD may take controversial positions, it operates within the framework of a democratic society. It faces scrutiny from the media, opposition from other political parties, and judgment from the electorate. Its rise is a reflection of the electorate’s discontent, not a return to fascism.

By placing It all together all right-wing movements under the Nazi label, we ignore the nuances and complexities of modern politics. People who support AfD aren’t advocating for a fascist dictatorship—they’re expressing their views on how Germany should be governed in a rapidly changing world.

What we need more of in today’s political discourse is open dialogue and a willingness to understand different perspectives. Disagreeing with AfD policies is entirely valid, but dismissing its supporters as Nazis is not a productive at all!

Try engaging in meaningful conversations about the concerns that drive people to support AfD can lead to better understanding and potentially even compromise.

It’s crucial to recognise that the misuse of the term "Nazi" ultimately harms the democratic process. When we reduce our opponents to caricatures, we lose the opportunity to engage in healthy, constructive debate. This is happening all over the western world. If we can’t have simple constructive conversations all the men and woman who fought for our freedom etc would of been for NOTHING!

Supporting the Alternative for Germany does not make someone a Nazi. It’s that simple!

[i-am-trans-gwender]

The best part about a Bug's Life is that it's mainly a lighthearted comedy about an ant who accidentally hires circus bugs to protect his colony. But whenever Hopper enters the screen it becomes a political thriller.

[toastiemcstrudel]

A few flag re/designs of various religious anarchist schools of thought

Buddhist Anarchism

Christian Anarchism

Islamic Anarchism

Jewish Anarchism

Taoist Anarchism