loudwhisper
@loudwhisper@infosec.pub
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
This is contradicting the neoliberal mantra, that it is totally the individuals fault and thereby justified.
Sorta. But anyway, neoliberalism is far from the only oppressive ideology.
Also Islam with its prohibition of interest is incompatibile with capitalism
I really don’t think so. Interests are not really a foundational pillar of capitalism. Private property of means of production is.
obey God
And did god (or gods) speak to them? Or there is always a translation layer that includes other people; prophets, messiahs, clergy, shamans, visionaries, etc.? Still a hierarchy. Still a means of control. Who decides what the gods say controls people. That’s exactly the problem with religion.
About the soviet union and other antireligious countries: there are multiple ideologies that can lead to oppression. I am definitely not going to say that without religion oppression wouldn’t exist. I am saying that religion is an enabler for it.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
Derubricating everything to the “external” imperial forces is dismissive and forgets centuries of violent history, including those of Muslim empires. Islam, like most religions is bigoted, intolerant and barbaric.
A common argument is that Jesus would be a socialist by todays definitions
And that’s nonsense.
I agree with you that the institutionalization is an issue, but that is an issue of the particular institutions, not the religion itself.
No, I think it’s actually religion and religious thinking specifically the problem. Institutionalized religion is just the natural consequence of the issue.
Religion is fundamentally a reactionary ideology because it prescribes an external entity (or entities) which decided how things should be. This deresponsibilizes people and inherently justifies the existing. All the religious emancipation still happens under the umbrella of a reality that has to work in a certain way.
For example, most religions tend to accept suffering and poverty as a given, as a test or as something that in general is by design. Assigning virtue to being oppressed (like in case of some Christian messages) is far from a revolutionary stance, it’s a tool aimed at controlling those who are oppressed.
If in millennia every religion ever has been used to crystalize a power hierarchy in humanity (from the clergy to caste systems), maybe there is a reason. And the reason is that religious thinking and mindset inherently enables these hierarchies.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
So accommodating and tolerant. Many countries have the death penalty for apostates, in others it might be technically legal but you would still face harassment from police and general institutions. Isn’t this wonderful?
…m.wikipedia.org/…/Apostasy_in_Islam_by_country
Classic overcorrection I have seen many times: western countries have mostly a Christianity problem, and to counter the bigotry, racism and intolerance, progressive people take the defense of other barbaric, intolerant and bigot religions.
This is especially frustrating when it comes from a leftist perspective. Religion is a form of institutionalized control and oppression, and as such is a fundamental enemy of the working class.
- Comment on Actors that have been the least believable scientist castings, I’ll start. 1 week ago:
The weather man? I think he fit very well. Same for Lord of War. I know they are both 20 years old, but still.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Really annoying interaction. I am out. Cya.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
That’s not the argument, and you know it, which you need to understand, now it makes it even harder not to think maliciously about the good faith you bring to the conversation.
In case you actually care about it: I feel your statement not only unfairly characterizes white men (not all of them, taking blame for other demographics too etc., etc.,) which who cares, but also is completely exclusionary of all those women who were are not historically oppressed by white men, for example those in different parts of the world, those themselves part of racial minorities etc., and that’s what I think is racist. Of course, in that US-centric perspective the world is the same as for Hollywood disaster movies…
You disagree for sure, but since you were interested in comedy…
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Fair enough.
However, OP stood by his statement:
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
So I guess your interpretation was too generous, mine slightly too strict.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
You meant to write what you wrote, I assumed…?
But I see we are going in circles. So far you are leaning on “that’s the common oppressor” which sounds silly to me if I am being honest. But anyway, whatever. I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect. Don’t need to convince you or change your mind. So have a good day/evening/whatever.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Are you implying that minorities aren’t oppressed and don’t need safe spaces?
What? My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression. Of course minorities are oppressed and need safe spaces.
which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country
What has the language we are speaking (which is not even my language) to do with what is “historically” true or not? Is this just a classic example of US exceptionalism or what?
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
Minorities are also oppressed by way more demographics than white men.
If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.
Saying that men oppressed women is a much, much, much more accurate statement, for example. There are always exceptions, but we are talking about different things.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Absolutely not true. The critique is based on adding a racial connotation to gender oppression, which is completely orthogonal to it.
To be even more frank, saying that women and minorities need safe spaces because white men historically oppressed them is complete bonkers. Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
I literally took your words literally, as I quoted and addressed the very sentence you wrote. You decided to add white to a sentence that didn’t need it. It’s already the second comment where you refuse to elaborate and instead you indulge in meta-conversation. So for the sake of clarity, discard everything I have said so far, and allow me to simply ask what did you mean with that sentence?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
The rest of the critique remains nevertheless.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
No it doesn’t exclude that, but it also unnecessarily mixes racial with gender discrimination, and in a general statement like that is odd to do that. The intention I perceived was to link the creation of spaces that women (or minorities) require to white men discrimination only, which is absurd in my opinion.
To make a similar example, saying “gay people need their spaces, because they are historically discriminated by black women” doesn’t “exclude” that also men discriminate them, or that also white women do, but I hope you can see what an odd statement that is, and if someone would find it misogynistic or racist, I think they would be right.
Thinking maliciously, I would say that’s the classic way for a white guy (the commenter stated that about himself) to make a statement that is less controversial because it only “accuses” their own demographic and the most acceptable demographic to critique.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Can you please then elaborate on what the following means, according to your interpretation?
Women and minority only spaces exist because white men as a group have historically discriminated against them
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
It’s more like that stage only allows women participants. But the stage example doesn’t work well because a forum is not a stage.
Either way, I take issue with the idea that a male participation makes a space inherently unsafe. You didn’t say it explicitly, but you kinda implied it.
I think this is not only false, but it’s divisive and it’s a terrible narrative to build that harms cohesion in the face of class struggle.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
~white~ men as a group
Unless you are suggesting women have not being discriminated in non-white communities?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Do you/did you feel that random members of a demographic “speak for you”? Why would that be the case for people you have nothing in common with except some amount of genetic material?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
To be fair the vast, vast majority of the rules are simply common sense stuff. If you are not an asshole, you can avoid reading community rules and in 99% of case you won’t violate any.
- Comment on obesity 11 months ago:
Django Unchained
Isn’t it ironic that a movie with so many uses of that word helped you understand that word better?
To me it seems a very good reason to believe that people shouldn’t be afraid of the syntax of the word, but definitely oppose the use when the semantic is the despicable one.