Show post
leftexincel #fundie #sexist #moonbat reddit.com

How would I go about sharing my two cents as an ex-incel from a left political perspective (communist)?

Disclaimer: not an 'AMA'.

I'm 20 something years old and with an inhuman amount of effort I've 'ascended' to being a normie, with my own day job's income and place, a halfway finished BA at a university, a couple of girlfriends (none higher than a '4') and a current girlfriend I've had sex with on multiple occasions (also probably no higher than a '4' or maybe '4.5' if I asked the layman), all met at work and school.

I'm by no means very attractive naturally (though I've fixed much of it with callisthenics, proper self-care, proper amounts of sleep, improving my posture and facial expression, etc.) spergy (diagnosed with Asperger's, personality development disorder, MDD), rather frequent drug user and had the typical bleak loner and clown-like childhood.

In spite of what I would call the 'reactionary' character of the online incel community, I highly sympathize with it and believe that it is the product of legitimate structural failures of modernity against men and that the cause lies in the increased social demand to be more than just an authentic individual and partner to a woman, but a full 'product' that needs to be valorizable as more than a partner but as a commodity and status object in general.

With the decline of old rigid patriarchal structures this subjectivity in relations has opened up but in a world where, increasingly, value must come from socioeconomic status, which can primarily be sold materially in the form of: disposable income or other forms of capital, a conformed physical appearance and outwardly matching confidence and (sexually enticing) personality; all elements that improve one's ability to sell oneself and acquire the means to purchase others. Attraction is a financial transaction exchanged for either financial or social capital, and one must have both or be able to acquire either one with the other to succeed in obtaining intimacy. I strongly believe that 'neurodivergent' incels in reality fail to find intimacy because they would never want to sacrifice their authenticity for conformity, and that this is then communicated through a resentment of the object of desire (an authentic female companionship).

I'm not much happier now that I've improved myself, but in effect that is the real problem: anyone can 'ascend' if they truly try hard enough, but it will never really fulfill any real needs, because the real desire is for a world within which folding oneself over so hard just to fit in and obtain what is today arguably the most important form of social capital, a female companion, is so necessary.

My ideal would not so much be a world in which society itself coerces women to (once more) conform to being the guaranteed other to men (enforced monogamy, arranged marriage, social division in sex, etc.), as this would equally remove any element of authenticity, but rather a world in which propertied social capital is an impossibility and as as such serves no real inherent added value in the experience and reproduction of daily life but that sex and romance is then reduced purely to its own, non-vital element of life. I realize the former is that which is attractive to you because, on a metaphysical level, you have already concluded that there is a difference between men and women so fundamental that it cannot be changed by altering society to have the woman be less of an object (inherently, you believe this will always be the case), but to me that reality is not only false but untennable: if our predicament is in effect that we have strayed from a metaphysical essence (patriarchal society) by introducing subjectivity and that we must either return to that essence or suffer mentally, then I would honestly rather kill myself twice over as it would imply that the human experience as such already exists, that there is nothing to discover or experience whatsoever but something in particular one must just as well conform to as the current predicament.

Essentially this means that for all intents and purposes incels are right about the present state of things, and do identify a problem, and are right when saying that, objectively, when one is an incel, there is little more to do than try to 'looksmaxx' or whatever oneself to be as close to a 'normie' as possible. And likewise I share the agreement that this is a decrepit state for a society to be in. I simply don't think salvation lies in the past.

I'm not sure I'm making much of a point here anymore, so I'll leave it at this. I haven't gotten into why I'm a communist now and, frankly, I don't think it really matters in more than how I roughly view the incel question on a macro-scale. Again, I know this is no AMAs, and I wasn't looking for an AMA either. I just wanted to tell you my experiences and perspective and get your opinions on them straight.

If this wasn't the right place to make this post but such a place exists please link me to it before nuking.

E: apologies for how everything in the title starts in caps; nothing else here is formatted that way and it looks stupid.

Show post
Aimee Terese #sexist #moonbat twitter.com

@itsa_talia

https://twitter.com/itsa_talia/status/1124948284785688576

there is so much cum on your face

being a woman is totally normal and very cool

The hysterical discourses of our era — #metoo prime among them — adopt a patina of sexual moralism, but the sex is a mere cloak by which bourgeoise ideology propagates & reproduces itself. Discursive gasoline poured on a fire of neoliberal acceleration, atomisation and alienation.

Ladies splashing their asinine antagonism toward men all over the timeline are showing their sterile, ruling class hand. Most women don't have the luxury of hysterical revulsion toward their partners. Caring isn't creepy; it's deeply human to need other people and to be needed.

That ruling class hand becomes an iron fist upon receipt of a lonely fools flirty DM. If you're an adult who cannot politely but firmly reject an unrequited advance or hit the block button, you need help. So does every yas-kween girlboss and male-ally enabler in your mentions.

99.99% of the people who have ever lived would LOVE for a cum filled dm to be the "emotional burden" they have to bear. Ruling class scum.

Show post
Ken Livingstone #moonbat venezuelasolidarity.co.uk

[From "Remembering Hugo Chavez"]

YOU won’t read about it much in those parts of the media currently arguing for war on Venezuela, but when Hugo Chavez first became president in 1999, Venezuela had endured a wave of economic and social catastrophes in the preceding two decades.

Up to seven in 10 people had been left in poverty. Income per head had collapsed to the levels of the 1950s. Millions were left to live in barrios dangerously clinging to the mountainsides, often without clean water or sanitation. Many had no proper access to healthcare and education

After Chavez’s election in 1998 with a 57 per cent vote, he set about his mission to transform the country.

Two key pillars of progressive change in Venezuela were transformations in healthcare and education, funded by a massive programme of wealth redistribution that redirected Venezuela’s oil revenues to collective social purposes.

Under Chavez, the government built thousands of new clinics, hospitals, and diagnostic centres across the country.

Through Mission Barrio Adentro (Into the Neighbourhood Mission), the main healthcare programme established in 2003, care and treatment were provided free. In Chavez’s lifetime it saved as many as 292,000 lives, cut infant mortality by a third and increased life expectancy by over two years. Mission Sonrisa (Mission Smile) provided free dental care, while Mission Milagro (Mission Miracle) restored eyesight to about 300,000 Venezuelans.

In education, tackling illiteracy was an early priority. In just 18 months, 1.6 million adults learned to read and write, two thirds of whom were women. Beyond meeting this basic need, free education at all levels was made a constitutional right.

Investment in education doubled from 3 per cent of GDP in 1999 to 6 per cent of a much greater GDP in 2011, funding provision such as free nurseries, free school meals and the constriction of more than 3,000 new schools and 40 new higher education institutions. Two million children were added to school rolls, a 25 per cent increase.

Millions of adults were also enabled to return to school to complete their basic education, while Unesco data recorded Venezuela as achieving the fifth highest level of university enrolment in the world.

Free education as a legal right was just one measure of a new progressive constitution instituted by Chavez that guaranteed a wide range of human rights and prohibited discrimination. Turning these provisions into everyday reality against a background of decades of deep-rooted discrimination was never going to be easy, but huge advances were made under Chavez’s leadership.

Women were the main beneficiaries of the social programmes tackling poverty and disadvantage, such as entitlements to social security, help to set up small businesses and co-operatives and advancements of women’s rights in the workplace, particularly through the 2012 Labour Law legislation.

Coupled with these material improvements was a drive to ensure that the concerns of women were represented at the heart of the political process. This led to women substantially increasing their representative and leadership roles, particularly in the 35,000 community councils that form the backbone, along with 130,000 grassroots “Bolivarian Circles” in neighbourhoods and workplaces across the country, of Venezuela’s constitutional commitment to being a participatory democracy.

The new progressive constitution also provided protection for indigenous people and those of African descent, within an acknowledged multi-ethnic and multicultural society. Parliamentary political representation was guaranteed; a Ministry for Indigenous People set up in 2007 and service provision such as medical care tailored to meet specific community needs.

Alongside redistributing 1.4 million acres left idle in large landed estates to 15,000 peasant families, Chavez’s government returned one million hectares to indigenous communities through 40 collective title deeds

While a specific law against racial discrimination was passed in 2011, Chavez — proud of his own African heritage — also promoted the celebration of indigenous and African ancestry and culture.

The 1999 constitution’s fundamental provision that “The state shall guarantee to every person, in accordance with the progressive principle and without discrimination, the enjoyment and inalienable, indivisible and interdependent human rights,” also enabled Venezuela’s LGBT communities to strengthen their struggle against homophobia and transphobia.

The 2012 Labour Law explicitly prohibited “exclusion or restriction in access to work and work conditions” based on sexuality, as well as other forms of discrimination.

Chavez’s programme also included advancing rights for disabled people, rooted in the new constitution’s commitment that “any person with disabilities or special needs has the right to the full and autonomous exercise of his or her abilities.” The 2007 Law for Disabled People helped translate this commitment into effect through various measures, not least the establishment of a specific Mission to meet the medical and social needs of disabled people.

Taken together, all these policies had lifted five million Venezuelans out of poverty by 2011 and transformed the lives of many more.

But to help realise his vision that “another world is possible,” not just for Venezuela, Chavez also led the creation of key regional organisations to unite Latin American voices and provide progressive economic alternatives to neoliberalism, such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), a regional bloc made up of 33 nations, and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (Alba), a trade alliance made up of eight countries.

On the global scale, he opposed the disastrous US wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, becoming ever more an enemy of the Bush administration, who (like New Labour’s Denis MacShane) backed the shortly successful coup against him in 2002.
Of course, like any other leader, he made mistakes — and he was known to have regretted not doing more to diversify the economy away from its historical overreliance on oil, which has caused so many difficulties in recent years — but we mustn’t let enemies of socialism delete from history what he achieved.

I was proud to host Chavez as mayor of London when he visited here, and I’m proud to write this article on his achievements and legacy today.

Chavez was the spark for a revival of the Left and Latin American liberation in the 21st century and for that he will always be remembered.

Show post
Mark Carey, M Jackson, Alessandro Antonello & Jaclyn Rushing #moonbat #wtf phg.sagepub.com

Feminist glaciology asks how knowledge related to glaciers is produced, circulated, and gains credibility and authority across time and space. It simultaneously brings to the forefront glacier knowledge that has been marginalized or deemed “outside” of traditional glaciology. It asks how glaciers came to be meaningful and significant (through what ontological and epistemological process), as well as trying to destabilize underlying assumptions about ice and environment through the dismantling of a host of boundaries and binaries. The feminist lens is crucial given the historical marginalization of women, the importance of gender in glacier related knowledges, and the ways in which systems of colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy co-constituted gendered science. Additionally, the feminist perspective seeks to uncover and embrace marginalized knowledges and alternative narratives, which are increasingly needed for effective global environmental change research, including glaciology (Castree et al., 2014; Hulme, 2011). A combination of feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology provide the intellectual foundation for feminist glaciology.

Most existing glaciological research — and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change — stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses. These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology (Phillips and Phillips, 2010; Domosh, 1991; Rose, 1993). Harding (2009) explains that the absence of women in science critically shapes “the selection of scientific problems, hypotheses to be tested, what constituted relevant data to be collected, how it was collected and interpreted, the dissemination and consequences of the results of research, and who was credited with the scientific and technological work” (Harding, 2009: 408). Scientific studies themselves can also be gendered, especially when credibility is attributed to research produced through typically masculinist activities or manly characteristics, such as heroism, risk, conquests, strength, self sufficiency, and exploration (Terrall, 1998). The tendency to exclude women and emphasize masculinity thus has far-reaching effects on science and knowledge, including glaciology and glacier related knowledges.

Feminist glaciology is rooted in, and combines, both feminist science studies and postcolonial science studies to meaningfully shift present-day glacier and ice sciences. While feminist science studies focuses explicitly on gender and the place (or absence) of women in science, it can neglect specific analyses of the social relations of colonialism and imperialism, emphasizing instead Western women without sustained attention to indigenous, non-Western, and local knowledge systems that are the centerpiece of postcolonial science studies (Harding, Carey et al. Phillips and Phillips, 2010; Schnabel, 2014). The postcolonial perspective is crucial for understanding glaciological knowledges because the science of glaciology has historically participated in the imperialist, colonial, and capitalist projects associated with polar exploration, mountain colonization, resource extraction, and Cold War and other geopolitical endeavors.

More recently, glaciology has also been central to earth systems science that often relies on remote sensing from satellite imagery to suggest broader claims of objectivity but is actually akin to the “god trick of seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway, 1988: 581; also see Shapin, 1998). Questions about epistemology in climate science, ice coring, and glaciology are only beginning to be asked, especially focusing on Cold War polar glaciology (Martin-Nielsen, 2012, 2013; Elzinga, 2009; Korsmo, 2010; Naylor et al., 2008; Turchetti et al., 2008; Macdougall, 2004; Finnegan, 2004; Heymann et al., 2010; Bowen, 2005; Hulme, 2010). Of these studies probing the discipline of glaciology, only a tiny subset analyze gender (exceptions include Bloom, 1993; Bloom et al., 2008; Hulbe et al., 2010; Hevly, 1996) or approach human glacier interactions from the perspective of feminist postcolonial science studies or feminist political ecology (exceptions include Williams and Golovnev, 2015; Cruikshank, 2005). Fewer still recognize indigenous knowledges, local perspectives, or alternative narratives of glaciers, even though large populations of non-Western and indigenous peoples inhabit mountain and cold regions near glaciers and possess important knowledge about cryoscapes (Carey et al., 2015; Nu¨sser and Baghel, 2014; Drew, 2012).

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).

An additional theoretical foundation for feminist glaciology is feminist political ecology, which has generally emphasized unequal vulnerability and disproportionate global change impacts, but which also contributes significant research on knowledge production, ontologies, and epistemologies. With hundreds of millions of people utilizing glaciers for everything from drinking water and hydroelectricity to recreation and spiritual sites, the disproportionate vulnerabilities and disparate adaptive capacities in these societies are critical to acknowledge.

Feminist political ecology addresses how inequality and unequal power relations — mediated and co constituted through gender dynamics — have silenced the knowledge of people “most affected and marginalized by neoliberal, colonial, and patriarchal systems” (Hanson and Buechler, 2015: 6).

Crucially for feminist glaciology, feminist political ecology argues for the integration of alternative ways of knowing, beyond diverse women’s knowledges to include — more broadly — the unsettling of Eurocentric knowledges, the questioning of dominant assumptions, and the diversification of modes and methods of knowledge production through the incorporation of everyday lived experiences, storytelling, narrative, and visual methods (Harris, 2015). This inclusion of alternative knowledges and narratives alongside analysis of colonialism and inequality, such as race relations (Mollett and Faria, 2013), fits squarely into more recent feminist political ecologies that increasingly go “beyond gender”. This means that the research builds on “a history of boundary-breaking ideas [that] makes possible the present-day spaces where feminist geographers explore power, justice, and knowledge production, ideas that encompass but also surpass a focus on gender” (Coddington, 2015: 215).

Feminist glaciology raises critical conceptual, analytical, and epistemological questions that are largely absent in the 21st-century love affair with glaciers and ice. The framework offered here strives to open discussions, to introduce avenues of investigation, and to suggest ways forward not only for scientific enquiry that includes the environmental humanities and social sciences, but also for public perceptions of glaciers. Examples within this review and synthesis article are primarily meant to expose the value and various dimensions of the feminist glaciology framework; they are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather starting points to indicate lines of future investigation into this major gap in glacier studies and its related contribution to global environmental change research and both human and physical geography.

Show post
theredcebuano #fundie #moonbat reddit.com

I'm sorry but to other comrades, can we not be satisfied with "it's all a lie" or "Stalin did nothin' wrong." OP is obviously a new guy. If you just say Stalin did nothing wrong, OP may or may not believe it, or if they do believe it, will have insufficient knowledge about the subject matter. On the other hand, it's true that Stalin didn't do many things wrong. He had mistakes, sure, but not many, and usually they were caused by the external conditions i.e. Stalin didn't really have a choice.

Let's talk about dekulakization and why it's not an atrocity. The kulaks were landlords who refused to give their land. Now, Stalin needed to collectivize land to bring up production due to the fact that a famine was beginning to occur. The Kulaks intentionally sabotaged production by burning wheat and whatnot, decreasing, for example, the amount of livestock during the first five year plan. So is it surprising that Stalin would want to get rid of them? Next, bourgeois media likes to spit on the gulags, shame them to death, when even American and most of Europe had forms of labor camps. The Americans kept labor camps in the Philippines and Cuba for example.

But when, under Gorbachev, the archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU were opened up to researchers, it was found that the number of political prisoners in 1939 had been 454,000, not the millions claimed by Conquest. If we add those in prison for non-political offenses, we get a figure of 2.5 million, that is, 2.4% of the adult population. In contrast, there were in the United States in 1996, according to official figures, 5.5 million people in prison, or 2.8% of the adult population.

The final thing is that Stalin did strive for democracy in the Soviet Union. He called for a secret ballot on an equal basis, saying that a peasants' vote would count as much as a workers' vote. It was true that on the ballot, there was only one party - the CPSU. But it isn't true that it was the only thing there. Evidently, other non-party organizations like citizens' groups and workplace organizations had their candidates on the ballot as well.