#the way there’s no justification for bigotry and oppression

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?

Since racism, sexism and homophobia (hatred/fear of homosexuals) are institutionalised throughout society, sexual, racial and gay oppression are commonplace. The primary cause of these three evil attitudes is the need for ideologies that justify domination and exploitation, which are inherent in hierarchy — in other words, “theories” that “justify” and “explain” oppression and injustice. As Tacitus said, “We hate those whom we injure.” Those who oppress others always find reasons to regard their victims as “inferior” and hence deserving of their fate. Elites need some way to justify their superior social and economic positions. Since the social system is obviously unfair and elitist, attention must be distracted to other, less inconvenient, “facts,” such as alleged superiority based on biology or “nature.” Therefore, doctrines of sexual, racial, and ethnic superiority are inevitable in hierarchical, class-stratified societies.

We will take each form of bigotry in turn.

From an economic standpoint, racism is associated with the exploitation of cheap labour at home and imperialism abroad. Indeed, early capitalist development in both America and Europe was strengthened by the bondage of people, particularly those of African descent. In the Americas, Australia and other parts of the world the slaughter of the original inhabitants and the expropriation of their land was also a key aspect in the growth of capitalism. As the subordination of foreign nations proceeds by force, it appears to the dominant nation that it owes its mastery to its special natural qualities, in other words to its “racial” characteristics. Thus imperialists have frequently appealed to the Darwinian doctrine of “Survival of the Fittest” to give their racism a basis in “nature.”

In Europe, one of the first theories of racial superiority was proposed by Gobineau in the 1850s to establish the natural right of the aristocracy to rule over France. He argued that the French aristocracy was originally of Germanic origin while the “masses” were Gallic or Celtic, and that since the Germanic race was “superior”, the aristocracy had a natural right to rule. Although the French “masses” didn’t find this theory particularly persuasive, it was later taken up by proponents of German expansion and became the origin of German racial ideology, used to justify Nazi oppression of Jews and other “non-Aryan” types. Notions of the “white man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” developed at about the same time in England and to a lesser extent in America, and were used to rationalise Anglo-Saxon conquest and world domination on a “humanitarian” basis.

Racism and authoritarianism at home and abroad has gone hand in hand. As Rudolf Rocker argued, ”[a]ll advocates of the race doctrine have been and are the associates and defenders of every political and social reaction, advocates of the power principle in its most brutal form … He who thinks that he sees in all political and social antagonisms merely blood-determined manifestations of race, denies all conciliatory influence of ideas, all community of ethical feeling, and must at every crisis take refuge in brute force. In fact, race theory is only the cult of power.” Racism aids the consolidation of elite power for by attacking “all the achievements … in the direction of personal freedom” and the idea of equality ”[n]o better moral justification could be produced for the industrial bondage which our holders of industrial power keep before them as a picture of the future.” [Nationalism and Culture, pp. 337–8]

The idea of racial superiority was also found to have great domestic utility. As Paul Sweezy points out, ”[t]he intensification of social conflict within the advanced capitalist countries… has to be directed as far as possible into innocuous channels — innocuous, that is to say, from the standpoint of capitalist class rule. The stirring up of antagonisms along racial lines is a convenient method of directing attention away from class struggle,” which of course is dangerous to ruling-class interests. [Theory of Capitalist Development, p. 311] Indeed, employers have often deliberately fostered divisions among workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of “divide and rule” (in other contexts, like Northern Ireland or Scotland, the employers have used religion in the same way instead).

Employers and politicians have often deliberately fostered divisions among workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of “divide and rule.” In other contexts, like Tzarist Russia, Northern Ireland or Scotland, the employers have used religion in the same way. In others, immigrants and native born is the dividing line. The net effect is the same, social oppressions which range from the extreme violence anarchists like Emma Goldman denounced in the American South (“the atrocities rampant in the South, of negroes lynched, tortured and burned by infuriated crowds without a hand being raised or a word said for their protection” [Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years, vol. 1, p. 386]) or the pogroms against Jews in Tsarist Russia to discrimination in where people can live, what jobs people can get, less pay and so on.

For those in power, this makes perfect sense as racism (like other forms of bigotry) can be used to split and divide the working class by getting people to blame others of their class for the conditions they all suffer. In this way, the anger people feel about the problems they face are turned away from their real causes onto scapegoats. Thus white workers are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) encouraged, for example, to blame unemployment, poverty and crime on blacks or Hispanics instead of capitalism and the (white, male) elites who run it and who directly benefit from low wages and high profits. Discrimination against racial minorities and women makes sense for capitalism, for in this way profits are enlarged directly and indirectly. As jobs and investment opportunities are denied to the disadvantaged groups, their wages can be depressed below prevailing levels and profits, correspondingly, increased. Indirectly, discrimination adds capitalist profits and power by increasing unemployment and setting workers against each other. Such factors ensure that capitalism will never “compete” discrimination way as some free-market capitalist economists argue.

In other words, capitalism has benefited and will continue to benefit from its racist heritage. Racism has provided pools of cheap labour for capitalists to draw upon and permitted a section of the population to be subjected to worse treatment, so increasing profits by reducing working conditions and other non-pay related costs. In America, blacks still get paid less than whites for the same work (around 10% less than white workers with the same education, work experience, occupation and other relevent demographic variables). This is transferred into wealth inequalities. In 1998, black incomes were 54% of white incomes while black net worth (including residential) was 12% and nonresidential net worth just 3% of white. For Hispanics, the picture was similar with incomes just 62% of whites, net worth, 4% and nonresidential net worth 0%. While just under 15% of white households had zero or negative net worth, 27% of black households and 36% Hispanic were in the same situation. Even at similar levels of income, black households were significantly less wealthy than white ones. [Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, p. 99 and pp. 125–6]

All this means that racial minorities are “subjected to oppression and exploitation on the dual grounds of race and class, and thus have to fight the extra battles against racism and discrimination.” [Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin, Anarchism and the Black Revolution, p. 126]

Sexism only required a “justification” once women started to act for themselves and demand equal rights. Before that point, sexual oppression did not need to be “justified” — it was “natural” (saying that, of course, equality between the sexes was stronger before the rise of Christianity as a state religion and capitalism so the “place” of women in society has fallen over the last few hundred years before rising again thanks to the women’s movement).

The nature of sexual oppression can be seen from marriage. Emma Goldman pointed out that marriage “stands for the sovereignty of the man over the women,” with her “complete submission” to the husbands “whims and commands.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 164] As Carole Pateman notes, until “the late nineteenth century the legal and civil position of a wife resembled that of a slave… A slave had no independent legal existence apart from his master, and husband and wife became ‘one person,’ the person of the husband.” Indeed, the law “was based on the assumption that a wife was (like) property” and only the marriage contract “includes the explicit commitment to obey.” [The Sexual Contract, p. 119, p. 122 and p. 181]

However, when women started to question the assumptions of male domination, numerous theories were developed to explain why women’s oppression and domination by men was “natural.” Because men enforced their rule over women by force, men’s “superiority” was argued to be a “natural” product of their gender, which is associated with greater physical strength (on the premise that “might makes right”). In the 17th century, it was argued that women were more like animals than men, thus “proving” that women had as much right to equality with men as sheep did. More recently, elites have embraced socio-biology in response to the growing women’s movement. By “explaining” women’s oppression on biological grounds, a social system run by men and for men could be ignored.

Women’s subservient role also has economic value for capitalism (we should note that Goldman considered capitalism to be another “paternal arrangement” like marriage, both of which robbed people of their “birthright,” “stunts” their growth, “poisons” their bodies and keeps people in “ignorance, in poverty and dependence.” [Op. Cit., p. 210]). Women often provide necessary (and unpaid) labour which keeps the (usually) male worker in good condition; and it is primarily women who raise the next generation of wage-slaves (again without pay) for capitalist owners to exploit. Moreover, women’s subordination gives working-class men someone to look down upon and, sometimes, a convenient target on whom they can take out their frustrations (instead of stirring up trouble at work). As Lucy Parsons pointed out, a working class woman is “a slave to a slave.”

Sexism, like all forms of bigotry, is reflected in relative incomes and wealth levels. In the US women, on average, were being paid 57% the amount men were in 2001 (an improvement than the 39% 20 years earlier). Part of this is due to fewer women working than men, but for those who do work outside the home their incomes were 66% than of men’s (up from 47% in 1980 and 38% in 1970). Those who work full time, their incomes 76% of men’s, up from the 60% average through most of the 1970s. However, as with the black-white gap, this is due in part to the stagnant income of male workers (in 1998 men’s real incomes were just 1% above 1989 levels while women’s were 14% above). So rather than the increase in income being purely the result of women entering high-paying and largely male occupations and them closing the gender gap, it has also been the result of the intense attacks on the working class since the 1980s which has de-unionised and de-industrialised America. This has resulted in a lot of high-paying male jobs have been lost and more and more women have entered the job market to make sure their families make ends. [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 91–2]

Turning away from averages, we discover that sexism results in women being paid about 12% less than men during the same job, with the same relative variables (like work experience, education and so forth). Needless to say, as with racism, such “relevant variables” are themselves shaped by discrimination. Women, like blacks, are less likely to get job interviews and jobs. Sexism even affects types of jobs, for example, “caring” professions pay less than non-caring ones because they are seen as feminine and involve the kinds of tasks which women do at home without pay. In general, female dominated industries pay less. In 1998, occupations that were over 90% male had a median wage almost 10% above average while those over 90% female, almost 25% below. One study found that a 30% increase in women in an occupation translated into a 10% decline in average pay. Needless to say, having children is bad economic news for most women (women with children earn 10 to 15% less than women without children while for men the opposite is the case). Having maternity level, incidentally, have a far smaller motherhood penalty. [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 95–7]

The oppression of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is inextricably linked with sexism. A patriarchal, capitalist society cannot see homosexual practices as the normal human variations they are because they blur that society’s rigid gender roles and sexist stereotypes. Most young gay people keep their sexuality to themselves for fear of being kicked out of home and all gays have the fear that some “straights” will try to kick their sexuality out of them if they express their sexuality freely. As with those subject to other forms of bigotry, gays are also discriminated against economically (gay men earning about 4–7% less than the average straight man [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 100]). Thus the social oppression which result in having an alternative sexuality are experienced on many different levels, from extreme violence to less pay for doing the same work.

Gays are not oppressed on a whim but because of the specific need of capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary — and inexpensive — creator of submissive people (growing up within the authoritarian family gets children used to, and “respectful” of, hierarchy and subordination — see section B.1.5) as well as provider and carer for the workforce fulfils an important need for capitalism. Alternative sexualities represent a threat to the family model because they provide a different role model for people. This means that gays are going to be in the front line of attack whenever capitalism wants to reinforce “family values” (i.e. submission to authority, “tradition”, “morality” and so on). The introduction of Clause 28 in Britain is a good example of this, with the government making it illegal for public bodies to promote gay sexuality (i.e. to present it as anything other than a perversion). In American, the right is also seeking to demonise homosexuality as part of their campaign to reinforce the values of the patriarchal family unit and submission to “traditional” authority. Therefore, the oppression of people based on their sexuality is unlikely to end until sexism is eliminated.

This is not all. As well as adversely affecting those subject to them, sexism, racism and homophobia are harmful to those who practice them (and in some way benefit from them) within the working class itself. Why this should be the case is obvious, once you think about it. All three divide the working class, which means that whites, males and heterosexuals hurt themselves by maintaining a pool of low-paid competing labour, ensuring low wages for their own wives, daughters, mothers, relatives and friends. Such divisions create inferior conditions and wages for all as capitalists gain a competitive advantage using this pool of cheap labour, forcing all capitalists to cut conditions and wages to survive in the market (in addition, such social hierarchies, by undermining solidarity against the employer on the job and the state possibly create a group of excluded workers who could become scabs during strikes). Also, “privileged” sections of the working class lose out because their wages and conditions are less than those which unity could have won them. Only the boss really wins.

This can be seen from research into this subject. The researcher Al Szymanski sought to systematically and scientifically test the proposition that white workers gain from racism [“Racial Discrimination and White Gain”, in American Sociological Review, vol. 41, no. 3, June 1976, pp. 403–414]. He compared the situation of “white” and “non-white” (i.e. black, Native American, Asian and Hispanic) workers in United States and found several key things:

(1) The narrower the gap between white and black wages in an American state, the higher white earnings were relative to white earnings elsewhere. This means that “whites do not benefit economically by economic discrimination. White workers especially appear to benefit economically from the absence of economic discrimination... both in the absolute level of their earnings and in relative equality among whites.” [p. 413] In other words, the less wage discrimination there was against black workers, the better were the wages that white workers received.

(2) The more “non-white” people in the population of a given American State, the more inequality there was between whites. In other words, the existence of a poor, oppressed group of workers reduced the wages of white workers, although it did not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much (“the greater the discrimination against [non-white] people, the greater the inequality among whites” [p. 410]). So white workers clearly lost economically from this discrimination.

(3) He also found that “the more intense racial discrimination is, the lower are the white earnings because of ... [its effect on] working-class solidarity.” [p. 412] In other words, racism economically disadvantages white workers because it undermines the solidarity between black and white workers and weakens trade union organisation.

So overall, these white workers receive some apparent privileges from racism, but are in fact screwed by it. Thus racism and other forms of hierarchy actually works against the interests of those working class people who practice it — and, by weakening workplace and social unity, benefits the ruling class:

“As long as discrimination exists and racial or ethnic minorities are oppressed, the entire working class is weakened. This is so because the Capitalist class is able to use racism to drive down the wages of individual segments of the working class by inciting racial antagonism and forcing a fight for jobs and services. This division is a development that ultimately undercuts the living standards of all workers. Moreover, by pitting Whites against Blacks and other oppressed nationalities, the Capitalist class is able to prevent workers from uniting against their common enemy. As long as workers are fighting each other, the Capitalist class is secure.” [Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin, Op. Cit., pp. 12–3]

In addition, a wealth of alternative viewpoints, insights, experiences, cultures, thoughts and so on are denied the racist, sexist or homophobe. Their minds are trapped in a cage, stagnating within a mono-culture — and stagnation is death for the personality. Such forms of oppression are dehumanising for those who practice them, for the oppressor lives as a role, not as a person, and so are restricted by it and cannot express their individuality freely (and so do so in very limited ways). This warps the personality of the oppressor and impoverishes their own life and personality. Homophobia and sexism also limits the flexibility of all people, gay or straight, to choose the sexual expressions and relationships that are right for them. The sexual repression of the sexist and homophobe will hardly be good for their mental health, their relationships or general development.

From the anarchist standpoint, oppression based on race, sex or sexuality will remain forever intractable under capitalism or, indeed, under any economic or political system based on domination and exploitation. While individual members of “minorities” may prosper, racism as a justification for inequality is too useful a tool for elites to discard. By using the results of racism (e.g. poverty) as a justification for racist ideology, criticism of the status quo can, yet again, be replaced by nonsense about “nature” and “biology.” Similarly with sexism or discrimination against gays.

The long-term solution is obvious: dismantle capitalism and the hierarchical, economically class-stratified society with which it is bound up. By getting rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation and its consequent imperialism and poverty, we will also eliminate the need for ideologies of racial or sexual superiority used to justify the oppression of one group by another or to divide and weaken the working class. However, struggles against bigotry cannot be left until after a revolution. If they were two things are likely: one, such a revolution would be unlikely to happen and, two, if it were then these problems would more than likely remain in the new society created by it. Therefore the negative impacts of inequality can and must be fought in the here and now, like any form of hierarchy. Indeed, as we discuss in more detail section B.1.6 by doing so we make life a bit better in the here and now as well as bringing the time when such inequalities are finally ended nearer. Only this can ensure that we can all live as free and equal individuals in a world without the blights of sexism, racism, homophobia or religious hatred.

Needless to say, anarchists totally reject the kind of “equality” that accepts other kinds of hierarchy, that accepts the dominant priorities of capitalism and the state and accedes to the devaluation of relationships and individuality in name of power and wealth. There is a kind of “equality” in having “equal opportunities,” in having black, gay or women bosses and politicians, but one that misses the point. Saying “Me too!” instead of “What a mess!” does not suggest real liberation, just different bosses and new forms of oppression. We need to look at the way society is organised, not at the sex, colour, nationality or sexuality of who is giving the orders!

[gothhabiba]

it's not that I don't think that there are differences between how rhetoric that furthers or justifies the oppression, marginalisation, and/or denigration of various groups of people is used—racial slurs have a different sort of valence, for example, than misogynistic slurs (which latter are widespread, largely considered harmless, and not even really thought of 'as' slurs)—

it's just that 1. pointing this out as though it is incongruous somehow presupposes that these things should be the same, as though there is a taxonomy of different 'types' of oppression that are all discrete, parallel, and 'equal' to one another, rather than there being material overlap and meaningful differences in how these categories are historically constructed and enforced;

and 2. pointing this out as though it means that (whichever group of) people understand, know, or care more about e.g. racism than misogyny (or antisemitism than racism, or racism than ableism, or whatever it is) makes the mistake of assuming that the only reason the hallmarks of a certain 'type' of bigoted rhetoric could be more 'visible' than those of another 'type' is because people just organically care more about it—rather than recognising the actual roots of a situation where a certain 'type' of oppression may be more legible or more rhetorically useful than another for more specific cultural or sociopolitical reasons (for an example of a way you could analyse this, take the conception of Blackness as 'hypervisible'; or the idea that the Holocaust is rhetorically useful as something that 'everyone' recognises and decries because of the political usefulness that any justification for WW2 has for nations that used it as a way to further their imperialist hegemony).

and, ironically, people who make comparisons between e.g. misogyny and racism in order to emphasise the widespread and acceptable nature of misogyny and downplay the widespread and acceptable nature of racism ("why do people riot in the street if you say 'n—' but not 'c—'") are also using the visibility, legibility, and fungibility of (here / usually antiblack) racism for their own purposes... lmao

this isn't even getting into the assumption that rhetoric (usually boiled down to the use of a given slur, that ultimate distillation of bigotry) is a perfect litmus for the material effects of oppression or marginalisation.

[obstinaterixatrix]

so a pal sent an article by a philosopher professor tearing down crypto guy’s philosophy (I think it was overall good, had important history/context, but it’s definitely skewing more personal essay imo and the guy does use rhetorical sinophobia to make a point; which is obviously intentional to break through to people who are uncritical of western ‘aid’ due to internalized bigotry and not applicable to people (especially people of color) (especially asian people) who are already critical of it) (this aside became the whole paragraph) (that being said I did like the conclusion of a concrete example of effective aid and there were some pretty funny/scathing quotes) and I ended up reading some of the articles the author linked to and it really reminded me of how original kamen rider centers the theme of ‘protecting human freedom’ over ‘justice’ because something that kept coming up was how women would report that powerful men in the ‘movement’ would pressure them into polyamorous relationships with the justification that polyamory is more progressive than monogamy. which is bullshit, they’re both neutral romantic orientations outside the context of society’s dominant narrative. it’d be like deciding that being asian is more progressive than being white; while this can’t be said for sure, I think there is a higher *probability* for someone who is marginalized to more critically examine oppressive structures due to minority stress and community needs, but while the foundation comes from the asian identity, it isn’t innate to being asian (e.g. my relationship to privilege/oppression would be way different if I spent my life in china, where I would be in the dominant group—obviously being in the usa adds an element of marginalization that doesn’t exist there *even with* the usa’s global power and influence). so ‘progressive’ only makes sense to apply to ideology/action, not innate identity (and I’m sure some people could make the argument that the orientation of abusive men in that movement was ‘abusive’ not ‘polyamorous’ but that gets into litigating identity in ways that aren’t provable or relevant). anyway the problem with ‘progressive identity’ is that it fundamentally has the conclusion that ‘everybody should be [x] instead of [y]’; it’s regressive to be monogamous, therefore everybody should be polyamorous (which, as a bonus, ignores everybody outside that dichotomy). and any conclusion like that is easy to leverage by abusive people in power, because people who are in positions of power will use every tool they can; physical violence is for situations where physical violence doesn’t damage status, psychological violence is for situations where psychological violence doesn’t damage status, we are now in a society that largely(ish) finds physical violence unacceptable which means psychological violence is going to be the tool of choice. and psychological violence is acceptable when the perpetrator is able to convince others that their perspective can’t be questioned and doesn’t cause (meaningful) harm. thus, the perspective of ‘human freedom’ can highlight gaps that personal definitions of ‘justice’ (or, ‘being progressive’) can’t cover up.

[astropithecus]

So, an interesting fact about me, I'm an agnostic with a degree in Biblical Studies from an evangelical megachurch diploma mill - I was going to school to be a pastor.

I spent a non-trivial amount of time with ancient Hebrew and Greek lexicons, reading the books of the Bible in their original languages. I did a lot of extracurricular study on the ecumenical councils - the bishops that voted on which books were going to be "the Bible" initially at the behest of the Roman emperor Constantine. I read a lot of the Gnostic texts that contributed to early Christian philosophy but were declared heretical a few hundred years after they were written.

The conclusion I came to was that if there were ever any spiritual truths in the texts that make up the Bible, they would've undoubtedly been obscured during Christianity's time as the official religion of the Roman Empire, if not excised entirely. Even just the fact that Christianity was the official religion of Rome often comes as a surprise to Evangelical Christians - they tend to be indoctrinated with a narrative that the Romans targeted Christians for persecution, they see Christians being thrown to lions as the representative image of Christianity in Ancient Rome. In reality, Roman historians are the ones that created that narrative in the first place, hundreds of years after the fact. The relationship between Rome and Christianity was complicated. For a couple of centuries, there was some scattered persecution, generally not targeted at Christians specifically. Ultimately, however, the Empire's attitude toward Christianity became essentially "if you can't beat them, join them."

The Roman Empire had need of an official religion and a holy text that reflected its values - xenophobia, patriarchy, slavery, expansionism - and the ecumenical councils provided it. People point out the hypocrisy of modern-day evangelicals for saying "God is love" but then hating women and minorities, but that is the religion of the Roman Empire, alive and well in 2023. It's a stretch to call the Roman Empire "fascist" (the word didn't exist yet), but the word fascism comes from Fasces, the symbol of Roman imperial magistrates. It is no coincidence that the more literally you interpret the Bible, the more comfortable you become with a nationalist Christian theocracy, as the Bible was assembled by the ecumenical councils to be a cultural assimilation handbook for new, recently-conquered subjects of the Roman Empire - the world's first "Christian nation." Modern-day Christians promote the idea that people are "twisting" the Bible to support hatred, bigotry, and oppression, but they're ignoring there was a period of several hundred years where anything that questioned the absolute racial and cultural supremacy of the Roman Empire and it's natural-born citizens was declared "heresy" and struck from the canon. It's a text whose primary purpose is to provide spiritual justification for conquering and subjugating people.

That means White Christian Nationalists aren't "misinterpreting" the Bible, they're using it exactly the way the Roman Empire intended it to be used. To codify and legitimize a caste system where native-born male citizens occupy the highest strata, and political leaders are the arbiters of God's will. It took a lot of re-writing to take the "proto-communist" teachings of the early Christian church and turn it into that Bible, but that's probably why most of what became known as "the New Testament" was written by Roman citizens, well after after Jesus' death. Fun fact: Saul of Tarsus - author of the Pauline epistles, otherwise known as "two-thirds of the New Testament" - was a natural-born Roman citizen that never met Jesus. As if that wasn't a tenuous enough connection, about half of the Pauline epistles are probably falsely attributed. We don't really know who wrote them, when, or why.

Once you recognize the bias, it is glaring. The Bible paints patriarchy as such a fundamental force of nature that salvation itself is an "inheritance" you have to become "joint heirs with Christ" (the Son of God) to receive. It says anyone violent or debased enough to seize power is "appointed by God" - a step further than even "might makes right," this says "might makes you the literal mouthpiece of God on Earth." If I'm being honest, at this point it wouldn't matter if the Bible were the infallible "Word of God" or not - if this is "God" talking, I wouldn't worship him just based on principle.

But it puts Christians in a difficult spot. You either have to concede that the Bible is fallible (which is heresy, according to evangelicals) or that God really does hate women, foreigners, democracy, and social equality. If a divine force "guided" the decisions of the ecumenical councils it would mean God endorses slavery, government authoritarianism, and racial supremacy. On the other hand, if there was no divine influence, then the entire Christian canon is essentially fanfic, philosophy cherry-picked by Romans to not be at odds with their own imperialist values. Either way, it's not representative of ideals I could dedicate my life to. I left the church before my ordination.

Before my mother passed, dismayed for my eternal soul, she used to tell me she prayed Proverbs 22:6 over me often - "Train up a child in the way he should go: And when he is old, he will not depart from it." Christians regard this scripture as a promise that if they raise their children to know God, they won't be led astray as adults. I wonder sometimes if she got what she prayed for, but in a different way than she expected. She raised me to know a God of love, of peace, with a heart of justice and understanding (which means tolerance, by the way - it's the ancient Hebrew word shâmaʻ which means to hear, and understand. When King Solomon prayed for "understanding" to lead his people, he was asking for the ability to hear and relate to people different than himself. That's what scriptural 'wisdom' is - empathy and compassion - you know, the things Evangelical Christians call 'woke' now). Because of it, now that I'm 'old', I can't be led astray by the callous Roman imperialist god of the Bible or the new capitalist American prosperity Jesus that didn't really mean what he said with "sell all you have and give to the poor."

Seems a little arrogant, doesn't it? Maybe even offensive. "I know the truth, everyone else is wrong." Who do I think I am? But since I exist, now old and still well-"departed" from the modern Christian church, the only alternative explanations are a) Proverbs 22:6 isn't actually a promise from God despite what the majority of western Christians believe, b) God doesn't keep his promises or, c) nobody is listening to prayers from little old church ladies and this whole 'god' thing is just ascribing anthropomorphic motivations to the forces of coincidence and random chance in the first place. As an agnostic, I don't really have any skin in that game, so feel free to pick whichever explanation sits best with you. Just remember, if you ever ask yourself "what would Jesus do?" - the answer might include flipping over tables in a church bookstore and chasing church-goers with a bullwhip.

[ms-hells-bells]

What do you think is a specific aspect of trans activism that makes people so much more accepting of violence considering they are supposed to be “the good guys”? Like I’ve never seen them have this energy regarding any other form of bigotry ( any legitimate form at least) but instead it’s like they see themselves as baby lambs getting slaughtered or something. Kind of like the way people get more outraged at seeing animal abuse in front of their faces but being more apathetic when it comes to violence from one human to another. Like I do understand that they victimize themselves but it’s till hard to grasp given how other oppressed groups have an actual long history of violence against them for something that they can’t identify out of but here TRAs are starting to resemble right wing men in their embracing on physical violence.

well, you do see this with other groups that have majority males, all over the world. as i mentioned in the other post, i referenced chechnya, whom are the most oppressed, unstable, and low income state within russia, and have wished for independence for years, and a majority of domestic terrorist incidents in russia are by chechens. you have hamas against israel, you have/had the communist fighters in south america. it appears that under the prevalence of oppression (or PERCEIVED oppression), combined with the othering the other group (which makes dehumanisation, and therefore violence, easier), demographic/ideological segregation (allowing for echo chambers and hiveminds, that egg each other on), fear of loss of one's identity or way of life, and the majority of the group feeling attacked being male, who are used to and desire power, you wind up with these terroristic behaviours, regardless of political affiliation. all one needs is the justification, the support, and the will. it's the same recipe for everything from ISIS, the taliban, white supremacists, dictatorships, and even cult attacks. it is more likely to be from the right due to the believe of demographic superiority combined with a penchant for authoritarianism and/or fascism, but any side can have it form.

at least, these are just my thoughts as i'm writing this, it's just more me mentally reasoning out your question. i hope this makes sense.

[phoenix-fell]

Well, I’m immensely disappointed that the SDC was taken down the way it was,

Weiss don’t have to find some way to work around the system, or better yet ohelp Faunus workers dismantle that system and get rid of Jacques,

Jacques just worked for Salem having Weiss a convened excuse to arrest him, then Salem just destroyed all of atlas and almost definitely the SDC as well

The kingdom and company responsible for adam’s brand and the deaths of Ilia’s parents are both gone thanks entirely to Salem,

I’m also actually not looking forward to Ghirardelli show up because I just do not like the guy

I already did,ike that he’s far too passive compared to someone like sienna who was out there kicking ass and robing the SDC

But it’s specifically his words in the Adam trailer that make me think he’s a horrible fit

When adam kills that human who tried to kill ghirah, ghirah says “this is why they think they can-“ before getting cut off by sienna

ghirah, the humans ALREADY tried to kill you simply for existing in their general vicinity! Adam killing this guy in self defense does not in any way “justify” their bigotry,

And if they use it as a justification for their bigotry? That is THEIR fault, not Adam’s, and of course it ignores the fact they where already trying to kill him without any justification whatsoever!

Adam turned out to be a complete bastard but in this scene? Ghirah is in the fucking wrong

And yet the show just………ignores this? It treats it like we’re supposed to be happy he’s in charge again, and everybody so executed to see the bees meet the parents despite this whole fuckinf mess attached to him!

Hell at the beginning of volume 6 we learned being the “good minority” and stopping Adam made the humans like Faunus more apparently

Which reinforces the incredibly harmful ideas of respectability politics, the idea that if oppressed groups simp,y “behave” or “act right”their oppressors will reward them by treating them right, something thats entirely untrue, and ghirah as far as we’ve been shown seems to buy into that whole idea,

Even tho marrow’s entire arc is living proof of how it doesn’t work

And then there’s Ilia, working for Adam was wrong and I’m glad she broke free, but as far as I can tell she’s just following ghira’s lead instead now,

Land all of this just makes it harder for me to like Blake overall, because like it,or not she’s deeply connected to that whole plotline and as far as we’ve been shown, isn’t all that different from ghira, she’s broken the law sure but only for the sake of stopping Salem

We haven’t seen her doing anything like sienna did on robbing the SDC,

Many argue it’s because the show doesn’t have time to do a plot,one of Blake going up against the SDC and they’re probably right,

But what now? Is she gonna fight the atlas refugees in vacuo? When ghira’s militia aready holds more power then them?

Okay, quite a lot to unpack here lol. I think I'll probs start by saying, I'm probably not in a place to comment on the socio-political issues around race when it comes to the WF subplot, I've seen a lot of different takes on it and while I can say with certainty that it never really sat right with me, the best I can do is listen to the voices who are personally affected.

In terms of the SDC, I don't think we've seen the last of it - Whitley took over and while Atlas has fallen, they likely had mines and outlets across Remnant so it'll be interesting to see what happens when they get back to Vacuo.

I genuinely think that as far as Blake's activism is involved - so far there just hasn't been space for it recently, like rn they're in a different world, prior to that they were fighting against a tyrant, and they have a bit of a time crunch against Salem. That's not to say I don't think it'll come back, I think the fact that the idea of being a bridge between humans and faunus was brought up against her younger self, I can see the fact that Blake is now in a relationship with a human and on a team/best friends with Weiss Schnee, being important in building that bridge and repairing the damage SDC and the segregation has done. Whether we'll see it anytime soon is another question. Guess we'll see how Volume 10 goes, huh?

Lastly, I can see some of your points against Ghira - namely, not fighting back when the humans weren't letting up. I think that the humans in that instance left him with no choice but to defend himself, but I think his preferred method would have been to disarm them rather than kill them. I do think Ghira's approach might be a little different going forward but I think the main thing to remember is that while Sienna was more effective in making some progress and Adam ruled with violence and killing while Ghira was initially very passive, Sienna was in a grey area, and Adam was... well, extremist. The WF's original purpose was to achieve equality between the species, but fear and submission isn't the same as equity. It'll be interesting to see if he can strike up a more collaborative approach with the humans.

Personally, I think that the new WF and uniting humans and faunus against Salem might actually end up being key in the 'big fight' if the two brothers get called upon. I hope that this includes Blake and Yang at the helm of a new WF or something too, it'll be nice to see Blake step into that leadership role.

[rabbitindisguise]

I feel like I wasn't allowed to talk about or think about oppression not already established by social justice rhetoric because it meant that I was silencing marginalized people, but there are aspects that there is no current language for or support because entrenched bigotries people have yet to face. The total sum of oppression wasn't figured out in a day, and it's continuing to evolve and I need the flexibility of being good to people I have no technical justification for and societal pressure to be cruel to

I wish there were more legal protections for people who were non-religious the same way I wish there were less legal privileges reserved for marriage and from aro people. Frankly it's also a class issue where rich people can afford to be athiests because they don't need paid time off, and they can meet with their families whenever without it being a Federal Fucking Issue (emphasis on federal holidays being prioritized over people's needs), but regular athiests and non-religious people get the flak for everything a few wealthy rich white athiests do in the name of atheism (the same way poor people doing drugs justifies the lack of healthcare, labor protections, and anti union tactics of corporations)

I don't think america will never be a country where freedom of religion is sacrosanct until that includes the freedom to not be religious. Queer people will never have the freedom to be queer until we have the ability to not be attracted to anybody. Poor people will never not be oppressed until they can do illegal and immoral things and not have that be used against their ability to have their basic needs like food, shelter, and water revoked.

lacking a stigmatized identifier shouldn't be synonymous with having privilege in the eyes of social justice and that sort of thinking was holding me back from being able to hold regular conversations without putting everything under a feminist microscope. I don't want to feel entitled to how people identify, or have the ability to forcibly reframe how people think to make them a mouth piece for the narrow view of how the world works presented by current social justice models, or even the obligation to correct people's harmful behavior :/ that sort of power is the very thing I object to on principal

[essskel]

okay i said i'll leave your inbox but i'm a very curious person and like to talk a lot BUT THIS THE LAST TIME I SWEAR i just want to specify and ask one thing.

i meant that i don't like when people label roche as a RACIST monster not if people hate him because he's pro-genocide (that's valid i hate him for that too). it's like 'i'll be mad if you ignore my blorbos flaws but i also get mad if you make him something he isn't' kind of thing.

besides if roche was racist he would actually be irredeemable. and if it's not obvious by now but i only like ves and roche for that reason. they're not motivated by racism despite their horrible job and they can you know work on their mistakes but other blue stripes are just...mehh. good that died i guess.

and this is why i'm curious do you think roche is racist? i got the impression that you're not sure.

Dw I enjoy your commentary!! Below the cut again :))

-> I do think that in the second game Roche makes it pretty clear that his hatred is for the Scoiatael, not non-humans, and by the third, his role as an oppressor is essentially dropped completely and written over. But then, of course….the Scoiatael are a group of Elves trying not to be killed and colonized because of their race. They’re standing up against racial oppression, Roche was fighting to keep them there - even though he or the writers don't see it that way. So … I’d personally agree that while he’s not a racist or a bigot in the classical sense, he IS a major aggressor in a racist institution. So, yeah to me that is racism. Idk, is a racist a person who does racist things, or someone who hates another race? …yes?

The writing is so convoluted though, that’s why you may sense hesitation from me when it comes to blanket statements. Roche isn’t a real guy, he’s written as a narrative, and I don’t think that it's meant to be one of a violent bigot, it’s that of a soldier who’s consumed and internalized every inch of military propaganda he’s ever been served. Racism is part of that, the concept is inseparable and we lose almost everything when people try to erase it, but the ‘is he racist or not’ debate doesn’t move anything forward a ton, to me. The answer to the question (which is yes to me), doesn't really solve the politics of the factional warfare, or how willing an elf would be to accept help from him - I think this is where motive really does matter (Geralt does trust him for a reason). I also think it somewhat flattens the intersection of poverty that his character has a lot to say about.

EDIT: I took out a paragraph about the scoiateal cause I was using in-universe explanations and that doesn't actually matter very much here. CDPR throwing in crazy war crimes for their oppressed people to be guilty of is not legitimate justification for further oppression, its just bad writing. The well-intentioned extremist trope does not equate grey morality. The internal politics and witcher-world rules matter very little compared to the real life implications of the narrative. Roche isn’t real but violent, racist, unsympathetic soldiers who got where they are through their experience with poverty, propaganda, and privilege are. Therefore the way that I talk about these characters should always be with that context in mind. Narrative themes and the statements being made by writers, that’s what I really care about, not so much whether or not a fictional solider would be classified in a fantasy world as being racist towards elves or not.

tldr maybe: I don’t think Roche’s actions are ever truly written to be motivated by racial bigotry, he wants to defend his country, that’s the core of it. But his character - or maybe just the Blue Stripes as a whole - function as a racist, a racist institution, and they represent real militarized racial conflicts. He's oppressing people, and he never lifts a finger to undo that. I think talking about what that means and where that could go (hopefully somewhere better??) is the best we can do with what we have.

[hakkiest]

yeah, that makes sense! masculinity isn't an inherently marginalizing factor in itself in the way that femininity is, because of the more rigid and harmful roles and prejudices associated with femininity, but masculinity can factor heavily other forms of marginalization against someone who doesn't fit properly (i.e. anyone perceived as not being a cishet white abled upper class man). masculinity remains an important part of these identities, but it doesn't have the same kind of baggage. i see it less as a 'disguise' for other prejudices, and more as a sort of hypocritical self-justification: toxic masculinity is emphasized against more acceptable targets, used to punish people Othered by society. it's not that toxic masculinity is a smokescreen for the Real reason for oppression, it's that it's a useful way to demonize 'deviant' kinds of perceived masculinity.

i think the thing is that intersectionality is really important when you look at oppression and its roots, and toxic masculinity is a part of the hatred that forms those prejudices. it's not that bigots hate masc queer men for being queer, not masc - both of those aspects of the target's perceived identity work together to drive the hate directed at them. (you'll notice i use the word perceived a lot - that's because generally, bigotry is less motivated by who you are and more by what the bigot thinks you are. look at how toxic masculinity is weaponized against transfems to paint them as evil invading men: the people affected by that rhetoric usually aren't men, but they're seen as having an inherent 'maleness' that makes the idea of a trans woman in a women's restroom so appalling to bigots).

the point that i'm trying to get to, despite my adhd making me go on so many tangents, is that all the different aspects of one's identity are punished together - masc, gay, trans, etc are grouped up in the mind of an oppressor and the hatred against them will reflect that and be informed by all of these different ideas. let's go back to the example of femme trans men: a lot of the transphobia i've seen directed at them emphasizes painting them as stupid, self-righteous, attention seeking girls who don't understand what they're doing to themselves. this kind of hatred is undeniably based in misogyny, but you can't just say 'it's not because they're feminine, it's because they're trans', when both of those things are a part of it. that's the idea of intersectionality that's being focused on, and the post that sparked this was about how people even in feminist spaces can forget about the little biases that contribute to the whole, and unintentionally harm those around them as a result.

my final aside: yeah, thank you very much for being civil and understanding and all! i think the original people on that post are just too used to bad faith arguments from transphobes and the like, and didn't see past the first red flags. and it's a lot easier to just be uncivil than to try and help each other understand where we're both coming from. but thank you so much for listening, and i'm very happy to have this conversation!

yeah for sure! im a little bit worried abt the post spreading tho, i dont think my first response was all that good and then it got quite shitty from then on. im really not looking forward to it getting notes, but either way thank you for this! feel free to tag the first op on our conversation, they have me blocked but perhaps they'd like to add something in the end. this was very nice tho!

[zatdummesmadchen]

True but that’s not the point they are trying to say.

This post is highlighting the love and loyalty that queer Muslims have for their country and culture. It is targeted towards those (Israel supporters) who are using homophobia as a justification for supporting or turning a blind eye to a genocide, oppression, bigotry towards their people. — Pinkwashing basically.

Technically weaponising lgbtq, women's rights when it comes to Palestine.

There are so many queer Palestinians who are advocating for their country which has been under brutal Israeli occupation for years. That’s what the post is about.

Queer Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians/Christians even Jews have been advocating for Palestine for years.

Also every Muslim country is different, Palestine literally has many intelligent educated women reporting, demonstrating and fighting against oppression the way they can, this is also true for queer Palestinians.

I think a queer Palestinian saying this in the post has more weight don’t ya think?

I am not saying your points are wrong but let’s not shut down and call the experiences of queer Palestinians 'blatantly not true'.

Israel is killing every Palestinian regardless of sexuality. (Or …age or …gender) that’s what they are trying to say.

Again. Not trying to attack you, but please please don’t try to claim this post as false which was probably written by a Palestinian queer man who is probably no longer with us.

[wlwocprincess]

the way the darkling is literally your typical YA protagonist. Horrible childhood, nearly killed by others, abusive mother, had to constantly run away from oppressors but then eventually managed to create the Little Palace, and that's his story's ending.

I've always wondered if Yuri Vedenen was meant to be a parody of the protagonist of that terf wizard franchise. But now, I'm wondering if it was the Darkling all along, just villainous.

This is such an interesting ask! Thank you and I’m sorry for getting to it so late!

What I think is so interesting about The Grisha trilogy that gets under discussed is its position as a subversion of the typical fantasy story for young people. I very much believe that the Darkling is supposed to be a subversion the Edward Cullens and the typical immortal love interest who also operates as a dark seductive force, he’s supposed to be the “interesting” one.

I think more than anything, the subversion of this specific character of the terf wizard has to be the entire story of the Grisha trilogy, specifically Alina, since she’s the protagonist and what I find most interesting how different each story validates the protagonists’ specialness and heroism, specifically to the species and non species. Wizards are secretive and hoard this power to themselves with a separate society with its own problems with its own injustices (that are often framed as “Not That Bad” so there’s barely any unpacking) whereas Grisha coexist with humanity but there’s no separation there, this is where I feel like the Grisha trilogy reigns superior to terf Wizarding world.

The Grisha trilogy portrays a, not perfect, but nuanced tale of magical humans and prejudice, the problems with the world (racism, ableism, classism, systemic oppression) don’t entirely disappear with the existence of Grisha and their oppression, it doesn’t take a backseat, Bardugo doesn’t pretend that issues with the world don’t exist and the potential of persecution is not treated as a justification for magic to be victimized above all else, for there to be a magical “solution”—in TWW’s case being isolation. Being part of one minority doesn’t disqualify the other problems that exist in the world.

This is why I often have a problem, personally, with fantastical prejudice and oppression is that it serves as a metaphor to all systemic oppression, which is ridiculous because not all oppressions are comparable and often, they treat the world as a utopia aside from the magical oppression OR they force actual oppression to take a backseat and put the fake oppression on par with real ones.

But most importantly, it shows a lack of understanding of how oppression works. Bigotry and prejudice is irrational, and often, this fear of the unknown is justified via socialization and there is a use of power to force oppressed people into these systemically degraded systems that need to be acknowledged and dismantled, many of these systems of oppression not only coexist, but also are directly related to one another and liberation in one place is a threat to oppression in another. Giving a concrete reason for prejudice and making that reason being Literal Power just does not always work in my opinion.

The Grishaverse goes about this much more realistic way in my eyes, and due to the this, the specialness of Alina and the Darkling, is made much more complicated and by complicated—I mean false.

The Grishaverse does not present fantastical power as what is ultimately liberating but solidarity and community. Alina loses her powers, yes, but also gives it to the community, to the people at the lowest, and at her end she embraces what truly makes her special—which was never her fantastical power but her humanity and she embraces community.

Contrast that to terf wizarding, which yes, also somewhat subverts H*rry’s “specialness” but also doesn’t really deal with what creates Voldemorts and Death Eaters aside from the simplistic “Evil is Evil and Must Be Punished” whereas there is understanding behind what makes the Darkling the Darkling. But there is no acknowledgment of systemic problems and ones that are highly reflective of real world issues such as House Elves and Banker trolls (I think they’re trolls?) end up being brushed aside. H*rry may encounter these issues but doesn’t bother to really try and make the world he lives in better.

Where the Darkling’s ideology fails is that he, a man who is privileged in every axis and holds the most fantastical power, believes that this fantastical power is what will liberate him. He doesn’t value community, as he values his one sight of what will bring him liberation. The Grisha who follow him are not on equal footing with him and he presents himself and his way as the only source of liberation that the Grisha in Ravka have. He is willing to play into other systemic systems in order to achieve what he thinks will bring liberation, the patriarchal culture of rape and class by creating The Little Palace that is only a safe haven if Grisha are willing to be tools of the government, meant to be looked for all throughout the country and brought to be groomed into service to the crown from an incredibly young age. He believes that allowing Genya to be raped by the king is a worthy sacrifice. He even manages to convince Genya herself of this, her personhood, her mental state, her physical well-being being negatively impacted on the basis of her gender are all nothing in comparison to the liberation on the singular axis that she is promised. She must endure this to gain that liberation.

Other Grisha become tools for Aleksander, and it’s not at all surprising, he and his mother are not simply Grisha—They are amplifiers. He is an Other among the Grisha themselves, this is why power is so important to him. Power is survival. The Grisha’s liberation is his liberation but also his draw towards ultimate fantastical power is what he believes will protect himself, if all other Grisha are below him and can be used as tools, they can never use him as a tool.

This is what makes him such a complex and tragic antagonist because he is not simply a Leftist Villain Gone Too Far, he is a single issue champion who never sees the value in community or dismantling other systems.

However, this is simply my take and I do have issues with how Leigh goes about dealing with these systems in a restorative way, the series is not perfect but I don’t entirely expect her to have all the answers anyway but I am glad that there is a series that deals with magical prejudice without disregarding all real systems of oppression.

Thanks for this ask, I’m sorry if I didn’t answer your question in the way you wanted, but you raised such an interesting point! 🩷

[aronarchy]

(Note: This is my main, I use the other blog to reblog things when I'm not adding any text)

I want to be clear, what I meant was that, re,

#this is targeted #if you know who I’m talking about you may be entitled to compensation

My tags were specifically referring to the fact that the one specific group he was referencing (the “who”), which is named [******], is racist as well as ableist/eugenicist, so the original group did already include racists, and ironically the “also” wasn’t needed. We have been getting harassed by this group for advocating against their bigotry.

In fact, the original context of the ableist/lookist/eugenicist content we first called out was a certain series of memes which made these types of comparisons (claiming the good side = looks like xyz conventionally attractive ideal while the bad side = looks like xyz conventionally unattractive ideal) also was intended in a racist way: in one of the memes, the “bad,” “ugly” person was also deliberately depicted as Black (“Orc” should be a clue, since “Orcs” is a comparison antiblack racists like to use against Black people, and Tolkien’s original Orc characters were very plausibly built on antiblack stereotypes and epistemology), and elsewhere there were antisemitic connotations tying to “ugliness,” while all of the “good,” “ideal,” eugenic, non-degenerate figures were white Nordic Aryan-ideal “Chads” and the like. They initially, explicitly understood the lookism/phrenology in a racialized way, it wasn’t just coincidental even for the ones in the example (this shows how common racism is and how deeply tied it is to ableism, so much that they will naturally end up overlapping most of the time).

The quotation “our opponents are privileged bigots, btw” refers to the fact that this particular group, in a few ways, tries to take anti-bigotry stances and has constructed its main platform in part on an anti-bigotry goal (although it usually falls short of actually being anti-bigotry even in that way). Some of the eugenicist memes I referenced above not only portrayed the “good” side as white and conventionally attractive and abled and non-“degenerate”/“defective,” but also as non-bigoted, while the “bad” person was the bigot, and bad because of that. This is thus a closer analogy for the OP, which was calling out pseudo-feminist gender-essentialists who also collapse racist, ableist stereotypes with actually being powerful (patriarchal), conflating stereotyping with good feminism and being anti-oppressive when in fact reality is the opposite, the bioessentialism they’re using is oppressive and weakens their claims to feminism and attempts at feminist advocacy. ****** is much more clearly, outlandishly ableist, racist, lookist, eugenicist, and patriarchy-apologist/-naturalizing than average radfems on social media, so this analogy highlights the issue in the bigotry more sharply.

This reply of mine is specifically referring to the people who believe the bs white people used tried to justify slavery. They used physical characteristics to say they’re animals, have small brains, that kind of shit.

These beliefs are still prevalent today, and are very much a problem.

I am aware that these modern white supremacist, ableist/eugenicist frameworks stem from historical justifications for slavery and basically contain the same claims. I was trying to imply that the link is there.

I am always aware that these beliefs are still prevalent today and are very much a problem (****** and others demonstrate that well enough).

They’re also not only the open racists.

For some more context: ****** are not actually 100% avowed open racists yet in the strictest sense of the phrase (I use the term more loosely than some other people would). I meant “open” more like “says racist things in their semi-private chats and says ‘white supremacy is defensible on free speech grounds’ but claims this isn’t technically ‘racist,’” the obfuscating sort of way. They have a major racism problem which crosses heavily with their ableism/eugenicism, of course, but their main guy still (sometimes) pretends they’re not racist, claims our racism claims are false and overexaggerating and that they’re not Real Racists, or that sure there are some ~people with racial ideologies~ in their movement but they don’t mean Everyone there is racist or that that can cast aspersions on the whole org, that it’s just a few bad apples, etc. There’s an adjacent open Nazi group that some of their near-top members are buddy-buddy with that takes zero pretensions at all. But we thought it was clear enough ****** is racist and no excuses can be made that would justify those phrenology memes. They claimed the memes were not about race, that it's okay to post such things because “ugly” or disabled people genuinely deserve it, that it’s not that bad why are you being so hysterical about it, etc. but I’ve been highlighting the deep historical, ideological links between lookism/anti-degeneracy and race science that belie the claims of a politically “neutral” lookism (not that it would be justifiable then either, of course). Unfortunately, there are also some self-styled leftists/radicals/anti-racists nearby who have taken a cue from ****** and also frequently use lookism/ableism to caricature and insult their opponents, and they claim to be anti-****** but still exploit much of the same rhetoric with seemingly no self-awareness—I know it’s not just the obvious or self-aware people who are bigoted and harmful like this.

(This isn’t criticism, a complaint, or intended to be hostile or upset in any way, I’m just adding context for anyone out of the loop so my comments make more sense.)

there is this annoying trend where for example someone will like. reinvent phrenology and someone will point out " you know the nazi's believed in that" and then response they'll go "oh so i should make sure my phrenology isn't racist or anti-sematic!" because they don't understand that assigning physical traits to intelligence or morality is still bad no matter what, not just because "people who i know are objectly bad share those beliefs for the wrong reasons" and this happens everytime.

[rametarin]

The real 'point' of the "bear or man" question.

H'okay. Lets pretend we do not live in a world of anti-racism how it is.

Someone on Generic-ADHD-Video-Site.com posits a strange question to you. "You're stuck on an island with one of two men. You have only these choices. Black man, or white man?"

And surprise surprise, the poll responds: White man. As the majority of ADHD-Video-Site, in this timeline with little in the way of anti-racist work, favors whites. And Asia, also, is allowed to participate; from East Asia to Southern Asia/India. So, fair to say, the results skew.

People that are not racist ask, "Excuse me!? You can't just pose a stupid question like this. That isn't okay." That even half the people would feel so emboldened to engage this stupid question, much less demonstrate their bigotry by just going with the white guy because the alternative is a black man, is questionable.

And the people that run the poll and the alleged fair outcomes go, "Oh? Well maybe if black people weren't so likely to rape and kill you, WHICH STATISTICALLY THEY DOOOOOO, there wouldn't be so much bias against them! It's just the facts."

They then go on to cite statistics, which present themselves as objective, empirical, possessing scientific rigor and oh the people presenting are such LOGICAL and FACTUAL people, not at all driven by bias and prejudice. But they don't cite nonpartisan, unbiased sources, their methods if mentioned at all wind up being suspect or black boxes you aren't allowed to scrutinize, but you do discover there's a funny college and academia based clandestine group with some funny ideas about race and nationalism they would like to make more common and be the foundational logic behind more domestic policy in the country.

Come to find out, Radical Nationalist people have certain "lenses" through which they "analyze" the world and interpret it, claim they aren't an organization, "just a set of ideas," and these ideas include treating racial demographics like destiny and citing that they're different classes of people to argue their destiny is one of war, conquest and oppression, it's just a matter of which is which. This view colors their willingess to use faulty premises and treat their propaganda as if it's scientifically and logically accurate truth free from bias or agenda.

And when called out on their racist shit, they fall back to justifications. Be they "trying to make people THINK!" with stupid ultimatums like this, intended to make you agree with them if you accept their shitty premises, or "just twying to have a convuhsayshun" when they're caught lying about negative interactions with black people that never happened, but are adjacent to real stories and instances- they're just using fabricated encounters to count every outrage a minimum of twice and make the situation seem a magnitude more dire. Encouraging different races to hold up in their own amongst their own to protect themselves against the dangerous man-type in their midst.

We know exactly what the purpose and function of propaganda like this would be, and whom would be perpetrating it, if it were race.

We know exactly who would put forwards a stupid, unbelievable poll like "Bear or man?" and then when the answer is predictably an upset, treat it like it's a genuine opinion poll held by the everyday woman and exposing their very real feelings about men.

When people voice disbelief at this staged fake shit, out come the handlers waiting in the wings to weigh in and go, "WELL MEN ABUSE AND RAPE WOMEN SO MUCH AND SO OFTEN, YOU CAN'T BLAME THEM FOR FEELING SAFER WITH A BEAR THAN A HUMAN MAN! Ask yourself this: Why would women feel safer with a wild predator than another human man? Is it because the bear is less likely to rape them? Or if they get beaten and mauled and eaten by the bear, are people more willing to just believe the woman, without second guessing them?"

And just like that, you know exactly the mentality and purpose of who staged this stupid, generic seeming question with a landslide outcome, and why it was a landslide. Because the real purpose of this fake assed poll was to be a "stawt of a convuhsayshun uwu" where they repeat those tired old, debunked lines like, "10% of the M&Ms in this jar are poisonous. Would you eat them? Mmmm?! Would YOU risk it!?" Implying that even 1/10 men are rapists.

Then predictably out comes the radfem statistics about how many women get raped and sexually assaulted (implied to be by men, also implying women don't rape other women ever at all or that forcing sex on a woman with a strapon isn't rape unless the male gender is involved) and thus that PROVES that most men are scum, how "society caters to them and believes them over women. :^("

Where they wheel out recommendations that women get the political and social power of benefit of the doubt and men get presumed guilt without the ability to prove their innocence, that this lack of default benefit of the doubt is punishment to women and proof of a patriarchal society, that "this needs to change," and if you aren't willing to just believe women over men in these accusations, you just hate women. "Equality" for them gets clarity, in they believe women deserve the right to put a man in prison with something as simple as an accusation, and the social consequences of losing ones career, occupation and income while the legal system scrutinizes them as a criminal by default.

There. I just wrote out the grandiose long walk from the start of a stupid echo-chamber stunt designed to trick impressionable, emotional women and girls into going down an emotionally charged rabbithole of bias and "questions that make you think :^)"

When the usual suspects start "just asking questions :^)" about race, we see them for what they are. Hate mongerers and racial supremacists sewing propaganda and very much trying to exploit your lack of perspective or experience and interpret the facts, demand you treat these facts as truth and objective (no matter how subjective they are) and then grill you on how you feel about these very true things, demanding you internalize and acknowledge them as true.

When the same sort of people pose the same type of bigoted propaganda designed to politically galvanize and mobilize people by feeding them shitty information, just on the basis of man and woman as sexes (or genders, in the modern day), we give them the benefit of the doubt as feminists, not immediately throw it into the bin with the Race Realists posing similar scenarios and propaganda.

"Man or bear" isn't a genuine innocent poll, it's propaganda theater.

[mallhatespeech]

abt prev rb, please do be careful when discussing this with western christians. they have been using this as justification for islamophobia and antisemitism for a few decades. they also pretty commonly use it as a way to prove that ALL christians are oppressed which is very not true in the US. there are christians that are oppressed in the US for the sect of christianity they follow but this is usually in junction with other oppressed identities (i.e. romani people). i know this from firsthand experience, make sure you're having complex and in depth discussions with your christian friends about it. don't let them fall back on bigotry

[scorpionatori]