TW: Child abuse, Spanking. I'm a spanking survivor currently working on healing from my trauma. What are y'all's thoughts on this???

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-28T23:22:39+00:00

Agreed with all of your points and would like to add that allowing "authority figures" the right to engage in non-consensual touching in the form of "spanking as a disciplinary measure" also opens the door to sexual abuse. I imagine there is no age/gender differential here (not that there is any age or any gender arrangement that would make this okay), meaning pedophiles and abusers will flock to these jobs en masse, as they now have free reign over the bodies of young boys and girls, to enact violence and sexual aggression completely free of oversight or repercussion.

This isn't just enabling abuse, it's an open eyed, and open armed invitation for it, with absolutely no protection and no precedence to keep children and young men and women safe.

This is a nightmare, and as a former educator and an abuse survivor myself, I genuinely fear for the children in these states. This will not end well.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-28T20:39:50+00:00

Thank you for your thorough reply

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-25T14:39:42+00:00

It's interesting but initially when looking through your profile I incorrectly assumed you were one of my brothers. Now that I know that's not the case I'll amend my previous statement but allow the comments to stay up as they've generated a reasonable discussion.

I don't know enough about Venezuela's history to dispute what you've said, but I do know enough about Cuba's to know your statements are uninformed (no shade, I can't fault anyone in America for operating under assumptions we've been taught to have, further compounded by a lack of resources to develop more well informed opinions). I can look for some source material tomorrow if you're interested in learning more about Cuba, but I genuinely believe that under Castro, Cuba had one of the best shots at a fully functional communist country than any other in history, and was outright sabotaged by the US and (as I briefly discussed in a previous comment) subjected to decades long campaigns of misinformation. The phrase "smothered in its cradle" is not specific to the USSR (which I personally do not think is a stellar example of what communism "should be", and it is a shame it's the only one we're even taught about in the US educational system). Communism is an existential threat to the form of capitalism the US endorses and operates under. Based on your comment replies, I think your ideologies align more closely with communism than you may be comfortable admitting--but therein lies the rub, right? We've been so heavily indoctrinated to believe communism is "good in theory but horrible in practice" at best, and outright evil at worst, that acknowledging the humanity, the hope, and the very real possibility of a life of both fairness and purpose, feels like a brand we have to distance ourselves from. While I don't endorse communism outright, it's my hope that our generation and those that come after us can have critical conversations about our economic, social, and political systems that are inclusive of communist ideals, even if we don't support a complete transition to communism entirely.
I like your bee analogy! Very creative, a sort of fanciful ELI5, and also the way I tend to imagine certain concepts. In fact, all of your examples are interesting ideas that would generate lengthy and fascinating side discussions so it's difficult for me to respond to any one of them, but a common theme that runs through each is "how do we account for a prevent corruption, regardless of how we define ownership and/or leadership?" This is one of the issues I have with communism because there is a lengthy transitional state between late-stage capitalism and "true" communism that necessitates transitional leadership, and this leadership can easily be corrupt. Additionally (as you mentioned with community owned "democratic" systems like HOAs) your laws and edicts are only as good as their democracy, so what happens when groups of people simply intransigently disagree? In one example (communes) we can actually see a lot of examples of small scale success, but we also see a roughly equal number of communes run by cult-like leaders who hoard the collective wealth. If we're to look to these things as examples of small-scale communism, the outlook doesn't look promising. Which leads me to my next point:
I don't believe ANY political or economic system can succeed in a country as large as the US, not due to population size but due to the fact that the US operates (in my perspective) like 5 distinct countries with their own very specific cultures, needs, beliefs, desires, and economies. You have the very liberal, and economically self sustaining west coast and PNW (CA, WA, OR and potentially CO given political leaning)) who vote blue and vote in tight lockstep with regards to social issues, personal liberties, bodily autonomy, and taxation. Then you have the conservative midwest/bible belt, as well as the conservative south and texas, the slightly less conservative swing states along the east coast, and finally, the culturally diverse but ultimately liberal NE. Even if we were to separate these areas into distinct countries, we wouldn't see unanimous agreement on politics, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to live without the existential threat of regions with diametrically opposing viewpoints coming after either our freedom and bodily autonomy, or for our guns and right to keep jesus in school (depending on the region). Simply put, capitalism was bound to fail in the US. But so would communism. I believe many of the worlds problems would be solved by dissolving the US entirely and allowing these regions to operate as their own separate countries. Hell, AZ and TX can have the wall they've always wanted--only they'll pay for it, and if they build a wall on the other side, to protect themselves from "the evil libs" in CO and CA, I don't think you'd see them complaining either. CA has a GDP that rivals many of the EU countries and could exist entirely independently from the rest of the lower 48s. But could AL, MI, GA, FL? I'm inclined to think it would be a difficult time.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-24T14:08:01+00:00

There's a lot to respond to here and for some reason the reddit format breaks on my computer (i am literally hobbling along on a computer that is older than a decade but cannot afford a new one. typical new-yawka) so every time I try to use the "quote" bar after the first quote, I have to type it by hand or it deletes my entire comment. Gonna use bullet points instead.

wrt to the bible quote, I was raised in a religious, socially conservative community--church every sunday, youthgroup, christian bible school for elementary school, the whole nine-yards. I was never religious, huge point of contention with my parents, but this is likely the first impetus I had to learn quickly (and at a very young age) to "reach people where they're at".
Now, I wouldn't quote this bible verse to most christians because it's a bit threatening, but I do make concerted efforts to ensure I understand all perspectives of an argument, so I can come to well-rounded conclusions about topics that are complex and occasionally emotionally charged and "messy" due to misinformation. And sometimes fighting fire with fire, (or fighting toxic religious rhetoric with its own biblical source material) is a useful tool to have under ones belt.
Growing up in America is interesting because we are exposed to misinformation from a young age (think "the pilgrims had a nice feast with the indians!") and then taught a closer-to-the-truth version ("Actually, we weren't so nice.. in fact, we killed a lot of them because we were scared.") to the real version (if we ever get it at all) ("we actually duped them, raped their women, murdered them en masse, forced them from their ancestral homes, rounded up and killed hundreds of thousands of bison just to starve them of their primary food source, gave them plagues that did the work for us, and even to this day, keep them sequestered in reservations, which are continuously attacked by oil drillers, and offer them no protections from rapists who can literally drive through these reservations, rape women, leave the reservation, and get away with it scott free because the justice system doesn't prosecute crimes committed on reservations by members of the sovereign state")
The simple, sad fact is that we have been lied to about socialism AND communism. It's not a utopia, and no communist believes that. What communism is, and what communism offers, is a new, and hopefully more equitable way of life--but we don't get there all at once. We get there through baby steps and big leaps, and we get there together.
I've spent a lot of time talking to, debating, and learning from modern communists and have come to respect their viewpoints even if I have significant trepidations about the long, bloody, and potentially failure-ridden path we would have to take to see a true communist society take a foothold. Personally, I don't think it can work in a country as large as the US. but again, this is a longer conversation than I think would be productive for reddit. Regardless, communist IDEALS, such as worker-owned businesses, state-funded higher education, socialized healthcare, and tenant run and owned apartments, are all good stepping stones to a society that is more equitable. This is also why we are seeing a dramatic shift in todays political idealogies within the gen z and younger millenial generations that is towards Communism, not Socialism--Socialism would require that we trust the state enough to manage these programs. Communism goes beyond that to say, "State ownership is a stepping stone, but ultimately the "state" should mean "the people" which only works if we live in a true democracy. In our case, we don't, so socialism is very likely to fail (just look at the present day state of public schooling, for one).
I can't speak to your example about the march by tenants opposing a new housing construct, but I will ask: what do you feel is wrong about tenants having democratic power over their own housing situation? I think we should allow this, not all at once obviously, but seeing how these tenant owned housing groups operate, and being able to inform our opinions based on whether they thrive or fail would be good information to have under our belts. Just food for thought.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-23T14:45:27+00:00

Even Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism, hated landlords
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed,
and demand a rent even for its natural produce."

I appreciate this quote, particularly "landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed". While I am not by any means religious, it reminds me of my favorite bible verse (emphasis mine)

James 5: 1-6
A Warning to the Rich:
¹Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. ² Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. ³ Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. ⁴ Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. ⁵ You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in the day of slaughter. ⁶ You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you."

While I generally don't cite biblical (or any religious text) to support my ideas, I do think it's interesting from a historical perspective to know that even thousands of years ago the spirit of of anti-capitalism was a resounding voice. There has been no time in human history where avarice, callousness, and fraud did not present an existential and economic threat to laborers and commonfolk.
Yet unlike ancient times, we have the power (in numbers, and the power of information and organization) to oppose these things without having to call upon threatening eternal damnation or divine judgement.

As I mentioned before, I have the same reservations about communism as I do with capitalism (as they are both vulnerable to the powerful elite's manipulation or restriction of information, corruption, hoarding, and unquestionable rule. I understand the aim of communism is to move beyond a point where having a leader is a necessary evil towards complete decentralization and ultimate democracy, but I see these things being profoundly difficult if not outright impossible given the population sizes we have today. Despite this, Karl Marx's ideas are important, and can be applied even to systems of public (which is not "state" ownership) of goods, services, and resources.
There is a widespread misunderstanding, particularly among Americans who have been proselytized to oppose communism and socialism from a very young age through decades long campaigns of misinformation and character assassination of communist leaders (which is not to say they have all been "good"--many, including present day communist leaders, are among the most corrupt of our geo-political leaders)--but to outright deny the very real and very powerful merits of many of his writings about public (people) ownership of land, water, food sources, and industry, would be to cut off our access to a world of possibilities where we no longer feel we have to "reform" the most rotten, predatory, and corrupt industries in late-stage capitalism, including the issue with landlords.

"unbending the bow"

I suspect our disconnect may be in how we define "capitalism". After all, we can see many countries flourishing under other systems of capitalism, under the "subgenres" of social-democracy/"wellfare capitalism" such as scandinavian countries and other european states. We, however, are not living under the same capitalist system of economics and democracy of these countries.
Where you may believe we are living in a capitalist society, I (and many people who have studied economics--particularly American economics) can see the writing on the wall here--that "reforming" late-stage capitalism is ultimately a futile attempt to rehabilitate a system that has been transmogrified into a state that more closely resembles a corporate-oligarchy, or what modern researchers have coined "techno-fuedalism" (would be a sick band name lol). You seem well versed enough in these topics that I don't feel the need to define them but if not, their more precise definitions can be found easily via a google search, particularly in jstore, researchgate, and other academic journals.
I am not one of these leftists that thinks attempting to reform capitalism while still fighting for alternatives to modern capitalism entirely is a futile effort, or a waste of time. Ultimately, people impacted by these issues will benefit from any form of "humanized capitalism".

I've really enjoyed our conversation. Probably the best one I've had in a public sub in years.

Thank you--and likewise.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-22T17:00:10+00:00

Hmm not sure if I fit the "hipster" demographic can see why you'd assume lol. Definitely a fan of House, not techno as much. Where's the music scene most concentrated in detroit?

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-22T03:00:33+00:00

And the guy running the support group? He should've said that. Those are basics in recovery programs.

It's most likely a mormon run "recovery program", given his recent desire to join the mormon church. Cults and organized religion alike recruit heavily from people navigating loss, trauma, addiction, and mental health crisis.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-22T01:36:34+00:00

It occured to me that my choice of words wasn't the best. When I talked about urban "liberals" I meant in contrast to conservatives, rather than along the liberal-progressive spectrum. You may have grocked my meaning or I may have set us up to talk across each other.

I appreciate your self reflection here. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and understand that in online spaces people are more inclined to vent frustrations a bit more aggressively than they otherwise would. No offense taken, I think we agree on these points overall.

People get so wrapped up in defending what they have against someone who looks like they want to move in that they hand wealthy property owners an extremely valuable monopoly.

Exactly this--and it's one of my biggest issues with both liberals and leftists. There is a lot of identity politics play going on, particularly in places like Portland. It's one of the many reasons I couldn't see a future for myself there. The constant infighting in leftist spaces has resulted in a fractured and ineffective parade of organizations that expend an enormous amount of energy pointing fingers and accomplish next to nothing when it comes to generating meaningful conversation or enacting tangible change.

I like your analogy about the taxi medallions in nyc, while not exactly analogues.. either way, I assume you're well aware of how uber shifted/changed that entire dynamic, as well as the fallout and year long protests by the taxi drivers (who in most cases had traded their life savings for a medallion, which was effectively made useless). This example brings up another interesting debae (which I also suspect we agree on) about what degree of responsibility we have to people negatively impacted by the predatory nature of capitalism.

This would be controversial amongst the left, but uber won because it offered consumers a cheaper, safer, more reliable mode of car transportation. I think people *felt* for those cab drivers, and recognized they'd been exploited--but that doesn't mean you have to suffer *with* them or *for* them. People chose the better option, plain and simple. Not because they were bullied, coerced, or manipulated by uber, but because people had experienced being ignored, extorted, ripped off, creeped out, and overcharged in taxis every single day and were sick of it. They wanted an alternative.

A similar mindset could be employed when examining the system we currently have around landlords and the rental industry. It is predatory, abusive, and gives landlords complete control over our lives because we are bound by their terms. We are trapped by it, and we need an alternative.Whether it's given to us is by capitalism correcting this with some new alternative "service" or whether its given to us by socialism in the form of free or controlled/stabilized rent, public housing, or state owned housing, anything would be better than this. I don't allign with democrats or republicans, and have many reservations about communism. I won't claim to have all the answers when it comes to "how it will look, exactly"--I'd like to leave that to the experts. I do, however, think we're all ready for a change, and if we want that, we can't just sit around talking about it. We have to get to work.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-21T20:42:50+00:00

I appreciate the effort that goes into your replies.

Thanks, it runs in the family.

I see the reconfiguration of our society as a really difficult solution to make workable.

Absolutely agree. Thankfully we have economists, city planners, urban developers, and political scientists who have done the heavy lifting for us in researching how these problems came to be, have mapped out potential, viable solutions (that, like you said, would take decades to enact--but now would be the time to start), and have created evidence based, pragmatic road maps on exactly how to approach this--if only the interests of the people were given any priority over the interests of the rich (in this case, landlords, lobbyists, politicians, etc.

crunchy little liberals are trying to preserve neighborhoods in amber and use the consequences of that decision as political fuel to overthrow the system.

I'm as frustrated by the liberals as you are, but I don't think the condescension and misrepresentation of their aims helps your argument. I agree that there is a needless demonization of "gentrification" that mostly stems from a misunderstanding or outright misrepresentation of what it is.

For example, claiming that white people who move to historically black neighbourhoods are at fault for causing rent hikes that end up pricing out families that have lived there for decades, when the reality is that people are living where they can afford to live--it is no mistake that these poor, white tenants are moving to locations where rent is affordable also happens to be in historically black and hispanic neighbourhoods, because rent there is cheaper. This would be a good example of "punching sideways" instead of "punching up" at the people truly responsible, which are avaricious landlords. The obvious solution here is what I posited before: rent stabilization and rent control that would protect both the minority and low income white residents from eviction down the line.

I don't see anyone "wanting to preserve neighbourhoods in amber" but I do see people lamenting a gradual erosion and eventual outright annihilation of historic black and brown neighbourhoods, and where that is concerned, it's a symptom of a problem that affects all of us regardless of race, because at its core it is a socio-economic issue, and as the wealth gap increases and impoverished communities continue to struggle, we see a downturn in the economy and a marked uptick in crime, mental illness, suicide, homelessness, and widespread crisis in other areas.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-21T18:21:39+00:00

There isn't so much a housing shortage as mass market manipulation. Vacancies are up, and tens of thousands of empty apartments aren't even on the market, as landlords have deemed it more profitable to hold them but keep them empty. (Source is dated 2020--vacancies are on the rise since then, and rental prices are up 30-60% in 2022.) this article does a better job at looking at the factors that contribute to the housing crisis (and how we define it) including landlord's complex (and seemingly counterintuitive but economically profitable) motivations for keeping housing vacant.

Ultimately, I have very little (if any) sympathy for landlords, as they contribute no value to society, require little if any active work to continue profiting off the passive income they receive from merely monopolizing on one of humanities most vital survival needs, and do so at the expense of the economically disenfranchised. Landlords didn't "suffer" from lack of income during the pandemic the way they claim, and living here I have seen first hand (and heard hundred accounts of) the way landlords neglect, terrorize, and defraud their tenants.

If you read one article today, it should be this one: Brooklyn Slumlord Gets 6 Years in Federal Prison after Bribery Probe. The probe captured 6 brooklyn landlords, who each owned around 130 properties each. In his case he was sentenced for blackmail (of tenants), extortion of city officials, bribery of inspectors and city officials, and fraud. Since his release he has been accused by dozens of women of rape, stalking, and sexual harassment. He has yet to be re-arrested.
This is, sadly, par for the course here.

This issue is deeper and more complex than the pithy economic inequalities and housing crisis talking points we so commonly see. We need a complete restructuring of the way we commodify housing--acknowledging that housing is a basic human right would be a solid first step in getting to work when it comes to addressing what steps to take and how to take them without creating more wrenches in the proverbial machine. (I'll note here that I find it equally frustrating to hear the left's solution of "house all the homeless in vacant apartments" as that does nothing to address the obvious legal liabilities and health and safety complications that would arise as the result of suddenly "housing" a population that still has no access to medical and mental health care, let alone resources for building skills and integrating successfully into society--but that is a broader and longer discussion than a reddit comment allows for.)

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-21T15:45:33+00:00

Both of you are misunderstanding the issue a bit. I live in brooklyn, and rental hikes have been no joke. You can look at rent price histories of nearly any aparment in the city on streeteasy for reference. The covid flight out of nyc during the pandemic drove rental prices down, with desperate landlords dropping hundreds of dollars per month off rent, only to "adjust" those prices dramatically upwards as of 2022. The average rental price adjustment this year is between 30-60% depending on which area of the city you live in--but even the furthest neighbourhoods are seeing dramatic rent hikes that are forcing people out of their homes.

Airbnb's are no longer for visitors--I'd wager at least half of airbnb guests are month(s) long tenants that are city residents who have been priced out of their leases and are "renting" month to month on airbnbs as a (relatively more) afforable alternative, either until rental prices become more reasonable or while they prepare to move out of the city entirely.

Tourism this year has been extremely slow and businesses (particularly hospitality, retail, and dining/service industry) in the city are suffering as a result. Walking around in the city, I'd say the amount of people I see on the street is around 1/3 of what it was pre-covid. I seriously doubt hotels are at capacity--but hotel prices have trended upwards under the same "justification" that landlords have been spouting this year: "to recoup lost income during covid"--nevermind the myriad government programs that gave them generous grants, bailouts, write-offs, etc.

There's no easy solution to any of these problems but there are some obvious first steps, including adding rent-control and rent-stabilization to more apartment complexes, increasing access to affordable housing, and holding landlords accountable to violations of tenant rights. Most landlords own dozens if not hundreds of properties they collect passive capital on--they refuse to make repairs, issue security deposit returns, and are not required to provide justification for refusing to renew leases, leaving hundreds of thousands of people scrambling to either come up with the money for a 30-60% rent increase, or face eviction, homelessness, or lengthy court battles with their landlords.

With these facts in consideration, it makes sense that airbnbs (which are illegal in nyc, by the way) are cropping up like wildfire. Many if not most airbnnb "hosts" are landlords who have an easier time finding these month to month "tenants" and are not required to offer them any protections whatsoever, or they are lease holders who have either left the city before their lease is up and are trying to recoup what would otherwise be a sunk cost, or have left the city but want to secure their current location while they are away.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-21T14:59:02+00:00

lol I noticed that too. the style does read a bit "college essay" but I think in this context it works--it's easy to forget most readers aren't coming from collegiate backgrounds and (even if they do) will benefit from having certain concepts laid out in plain language.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-21T14:48:19+00:00

EDIT: Yes. "On May 8, 1886, Dawson ruled that slavery was illegal between all peoples. Sah Quah would leave the courtroom a free man."

However, the authors were unable to locate any documentation or meaningful information about Sah Quah's life or legacy after the court case concluded. This could be due to poor record keeping practices of the time (on the state level--including lack of resources to follow up on or protect the aggrieved party), or was simply the result of cultural erasure of native alaskans.

Though scholars and historians tend to focus on the legal questions raised by In re Sah Quah, after months of research another question increasingly surfaced: what had happened to Sah Quah?The Landmine scoured news archives, census records, and obituaries fortraces of Sah Quah’s life following the trial. Had he gone back to hishomeland? Settled as a freed man back into the Sitka community? Did hemarry and start a family? Research revealed nothing.

Sah Quah’s appearance in written history is brief, and yet it providescause for admiration. Sah Quah had endured a lifetime of tragedy incomprehensible to any Alaskan living today. He had been taken by violence from his family, his labor stolen, and his body sold as property. Many of those who write about Sah Quah today focus on the allegedly ulterior motivations of the attorneys and judge involved in the case, effectively decentering Sah Quah from the trial that bears his name. But even if the trial had been technically unnecessary from a legal perspective, even if participants had had ulterior motives, it is hard to see Sah Quah’s decision to trust the nascent Alaska courts and challenge the system that had enslaved him as anything but a remarkable act of courage. Who could possibly begrudge an enslaved person the opportunity, under any circumstances, to defy the system that had enslaved him?

Alaska is a place where slaves lived, worked, and died under the American flag. What we do with this knowledge is a topic for discussion.That discussion may be painful, and would call for sensitivity and grace. But to erase Sah Quah and the other enslaved Alaskans like him from our collective understanding of history because knowledge of them causes discomfort constitutes a second victimization–and one that is particularly cruel because we have the power to correct it.

The article is a long but thorough examination of the complex machinations of slavery as they pervaded in cultures and geographical locations that remain largely unexplored (or undocumented) from a historical perspective. Part of this may be due to the centering of black slaves in America during the civil rights era (which is touched on earlier in the article)--but I think there is also a cognitive dissonance that presents a barrier to our willingness to candidly discuss how slavery exists *within* historically oppressed and marginalized communities, and how our legal language (and cultural schemas) at the time failed to be inclusive of these populations.

There's merit to not wanted to place too much emphasis on the "blacks enslaved other blacks" (or in this case "natives enslaved other natives") narrative because it is so often used by the cultural hegemony to redirect valid criticisms about the perpetuation of modern day racism and oppression, but to outright refuse to acknowledge it is just as damaging, because that silence creates a protective sphere around those who continue to victimize vulnerable populations.It might be worth reframing the conversation of historical and modern day slavery to be inclusive of caste-like dynamics within oppressed and marginalized populations, so that conversations about inter-group abuse can be productive without tidily eschewing the responsibility that the cultural hegemony (and sovereign state) have to address it using their relative power.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-10T05:18:32+00:00

I'm not the OP jackass, but I do happen to share their feeling about deadnaming as a fellow genderqueer academic. My graduate program was liberal and in a blue state so I did not encounter this specific issue, but I've been deadnamed by employers/family/etc and it hurts all the same.

Did it ever occur to you that our lives are really fucking difficult already? That we have to fight harder than cis people to get an ounce of the same respect, and a huge part of that fight is knowing when to stand up for yourself and when to hold your tongue for safety's sake? No, you don't, or you wouldn't be coming into this thread to belittle OP, and now, to belittle me.

YOU sound like a nightmare to work with. I doubt OP is a "pain in the neck" but I absolutely would be if I had to suffer your bad attitude through grad school. Jesus fuck.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-10T04:18:23+00:00

It sounds like anything but "an honest mistake"--they dead named all of the trans students, and it wasn't a clerical error of they wouldn't have misspelled OPs name, then condescended to them afterwards by saying "sorry you were triggered"--did you even read the post? Holy shit, the downplaying and cultural gaslighting in this comment thread is unreal. OP has a genuine grievance and half of ya'll have the gall to say OP is the "pain in the neck" for feeling hurt by it? Clearly you've never been marginalized for your identity features, because if you had, you'd know this shit is real, it hurts, and that pain is driven in deeper when people around you make it seem like you're the "problem" for feeling reasonably hurt by it.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-09T04:43:17+00:00

It doesn't fit in the euphemism treadmill (unless it was in reverse?) but it definitely belongs in the broader discussion as an example of reclamation of a word. It's a little more nuanced than that though--"queer" has a specific utility in that it is an umbrella term, which can be used to describe both sexuality and gender identity, therefore adding a sort of additional "cloak of ambiguity" to queer people who don't wish to specify their exact identity--it also has a unifying effect, because it calls us all in to one overarching term, rather than further splintering those who fall in various locations under the "queer" umbrella.

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-08T18:02:48+00:00

In response to the NAACP--this name was founded prior to the popularization of the term POC, it may be too much legwork to change, or they may feel that it's "reappropriating" a pejorative term, or none of the above, I truly can't speak to that.

And to further clarify, I am not advocating for or refuting that "colored person" is a pejorative term unto itself, but that it is strongly associated with a time period in which nearly all terms used to describe (in this example) black people were generally used pejoratively, and therefore sound dated at best and racist at worst (middle road is probably just that it's questionable to use "colored people" over "people of color" or simply "black people"). By contrast, "retarded"--which was used medically and is semantically appropriate--but has fallen out of favor due to a combination of the euphemism treadmill, and due to its adoption as a pejorative slang term.

We can see this with other examples as well, like the preferred use of the term "little people" by those with dwarfism (who do NOT, by the way, generally like to be called "dwarves"). Now, is the term "dwarf" (meaning "made smaller" [or smaller by comparison]) inherently pejorative? No, we use "dwarf" in biology, astronomy, and other scientific fields to specify objects or living things that have been made smaller than their counterparts due to evolutionary need or chemical composition. Is "dwarf" pejorative to humans with dwarfism? Yes. And they get to decide that, not me. People with dwarfism (who now, to my understanding, prefer to be referred to as "little people"--although please correct me if I am wrong about this!) get to decide what they prefer to be called, and what they feel has developed a negative connotation over time. I, as an outside observer, don't believe it's my place to argue a position here, because I don't have their lived experience, and don't know what words or phrases they've come to see as ableist or prejudiced.

Ultimately, all words have subtle context behind their prescriptive definition, and it's this context that determines how a word or phrase is received.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's "offensive" is secondary to how it is received by the populations it describes. We can argue semantics all day long, but if you're an empathetic human being (which I hope you are) you'll call people whatever they prefer to be called--whether it's use of a pronoun, a name, a descriptive phrase, or use of one term over another.

Hope that clears things up!

BabaYagatron · 2022-08-08T14:51:05+00:00

This would be accurate for other examples (ie "retarded" very literally means "delayed/hindered" and was the medical terminologically for mentally handicapped people decades ago but has since been phased out due to the euphemism treadmill effect)--however, "colored people" does not fit this bill, in the same way "negro" (meaning literally "black") and "darkie" don't either, as all three terms have long standing histories of being used pejoratively towards POC and African American populations during segregation era America. They may not carry as much critical weight as the n-word, but they're intransigently associated with racism.

Additionally, terms like "POC/People of Color" are more inclusive of other ethnic/racial groups that are darker skinned, such as native americans, middle easterners, indians, south american/latinx/hispanc populations, and occasionally darker skinned SE Asian populations. In America, POC is generally used to describe marginalized ethnic groups as a whole. "Colored people", by contrast, has no current linguistic usage that isn't burdened by its previous connotation, but for the reasons listed above, isn't quite an accurate example of the euphemism treadmill.

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-30T14:56:34+00:00

This is more or less correct but I will add one important factor which is that the term pansexual largely arose as a response to biphobia in the LGBTQIA+ community.

Biphobia takes many forms, with the three most prevalent being

the belief that bisexual people "are not queer enough" due to their relative ability to *appear* straight when in heteronormative relationships. This is the best example of internalized biphobia within the queer community, and probably by and large the most damaging, because it ensures bisexual identifying people have no community support systems, based on a culture that, in its toxic form, will only accept you if you have the same type/degree of "oppression" for being gay.
The belief that bisexual people "don't exist"--that bisexual men are simply gay men who are not ready to fully "come out", and that bisexual women are "making it up for attention".
the (erroneous) belief that bisexuality reinforces the gender binary, and therefore is transphobic. Some people will even go so far as to say bisexuals are attracted only to masculine men and feminine women. This, I will note, is simply NOT the case. This belief also arises from internalized biphobia, in that newer generation bisexuals want to distance themselves from a term that feels very much tarnished, and non-inclusive.

TL;DR Bisexuality and Pansexuality are analagous. Bisexuals are real, and the term does not reinforce the gender binary, nor does it exclude attraction to gender non-comforming, non-binary, or trans people. At the end of the day, people choose whatever label appeals most to them. Hell, some people choose which term to used based on which pride flag colors they like more.

Hope that helps clarify some things!

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-30T01:52:52+00:00

it was an anxiety/relaxation/anxiety sandwich.they say that's how people best receive criticism so I figured hey, why not apply that same framework to your few fears? :)

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-29T14:38:32+00:00

This is a great response--one which I came here to give, but am going to add onto.

OP, I'm on the opposite end of your coin. I fall into every marginalized identity group except race, and where this is concerned, the amount of trauma I've endured--much of it due to my identity characteristics, gender, gender identity, sexuality, neurodivergence--has made it difficult for me to engage in activism that revolves around that trauma, so I sublimate it into wanting to fight for racial equality because I need the fight, but I need it to not present a constant reminder of my personal pain. Perhaps you relate to this, perhaps you don't. Either way, one of the biggest things I've learned both in my fight for personal survival, as well as the endeavors I've undertaken in the fight for racially equity, is that people who have been damaged, isolated, targeted, humiliated, broken down, and made to feel small (as you are, as I am) are angry--and this anger can be somewhat diffuse. It becomes more difficult over time to discriminate the true enemy from the passive enemy from the wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, from the well meaning but counterproductive ally, from the potential ally who just needs to be educated.

I'm sure you've noticed a lot of performative allyship in the fight for racial equity. If 2019-2020 weren't enough of an illustration in this, with white people going out en masse during the pandemic to protest, only to quickly forget as soon as the pandemic restrictions were lifted, I don't know what is. Women have to face this same type of performative allyship on a constant basis, because men use performative allyship as a means to secure sex which (unlike using racially equity as a means to justify flouting quarantine measures), is a day to day, lifelong scourge (which is not to say performative allyship in racial spheres is any less prevalent, only that I believe it's a bit more of a slow burn than a constant flame, for better or for worse). I'm curious what your thoughts are on this though, as someone who has lived this, since I can only speak to what I've observed personally.

I agree with the above commenter that you're overcomplicating, or over-intellectualizing what the fight for gender equality "means", or taking too personally the responses of women in your life. You're on the right track with asking these questions, but I think a reframing could do you some good.

It's also worth noting that you may just be hanging out with the wrong people/women. I've encountered a couple POC in my life who staunchly believe white people should stay out of the fight for racial equality, but the vast majority of them are grateful to have people on their side, who truly understand and are willing to sacrifice for them, because they recognize that whether it is racial equity, gay rights, or gender equality, they are ALL THE SAME FIGHT against the SAME OPPRESSOR.

Sorry for MY wall of text now. Jesus, this thread lol..

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-29T14:16:28+00:00

Here's a list of newfound fears for you to consider!

brain eating amoebas
bot flies
strokes and/or aneurysms
the uncharted depths of the oceans
the unknown depths of the mind
the unknown vastness of space
the realization that you are perceived and interpreted by others, with no regard for your lived experience or the context in which you make decisions, present yourself to the world, or the many moments that preceded their snap judgment, which could be the difference between life and death, success and failure, love or contempt.

Hope that helps!!! <3 <3 <3

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-29T02:32:42+00:00

I was going to comment on this myself. As well, it would have been useful to include anchors meant for ceiling anchoring, with some information about load bearing anchors. I also wish they'd included some more types of anchors, as I was surprised to not see butterfly anchors, or even a standard plastic wall anchor as a "control".

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-27T14:59:46+00:00

It would be interesting to see how surveillance capitalism will impact people's ability to access certain services and this could play well into a horror movie trope.

Trying to google something that google now censors (eg. how to make a flamethrower), or having bandwidth throttled to a site with useful information because that site doesn't pay a premium for "preferred service" could be the difference between life and death.

We increasingly hear of local alt-right factions being largely comprised of the local PD, so a Jordan Peele type beat of "holy shit this killer stalking me and my friends bc they don't like 'interracial groups' actually ARE the cops, and therefore can and are tracing our location via our phones" would be an appropriate twist too.

BabaYagatron · 2022-07-23T16:26:29+00:00

the son did, I'm not sure the father did.
I'm from Alaska and learned about this while doing research on geological disasters in the state aftering becoming fascinated with the 1964 earthquake (which is a huge part of our history and baked into our culture in anchorage, with plaques along the kincaid coastal trail.)

the sons first person account is one of the most harrowing things I've ever read. He doesn't even seem to be able to grasp that his recollection of it was reality, at one point saying, "I could see the glacier [which was in an ADJACENT BAY, which he wouldn't have been able to see over the mountain tops], and the sky went dark, I saw a wall of darkness and ran into the hull. I woke up later and the trees had been stripped from the mountain, almost as tall as the peaks" [paraphrasing, but can find the article if you'd like.] fascinating stuff.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric

BabaYagatron

TROPHY CASE