>Trans people start getting rights in early 20th century Germany
>Fascist dictators take over the country and try to erase all record of their existence
>Trans people start getting rights in early 21st century America
>Fascist dictators take over the country and try to erase all record of their existence
What is it about trans people that makes right wingers go completely insane?
219 posts and 25 image replies omitted.>Go on to a Marxist website
>Enter a thread about my favourite topic
>Post my inane drivel
>Someone replies with a Marxist response
>"Fuck off am I reading Marx retard"
>Recieve response after response pointing out the intellectual flaws in my discussion with a Marxist critique
>"Heh, yeah, it's probably something to do with totalities"
Now fuck off back to whichever shithole you crawled from
>>6387(You) dont but le party does propaganda agitation
>>6381>The more individualized you try to find out people's reasoning, the harder it's going to be because people simply don't think that way. They create all kinds of copes and false consciousness.See above; this is *precisely* why I think that there needs to be a phase shift at some point in the process, similar to how some problems require relativity and others require quantum mechanics. Materialism in its current form doesn't strike me as a Unified Field Theory.
>The solutions are obviously to move towards a more developed economy where these kinds of reactionary and bigoted views will be phased out over time.So that's the thing, I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. I think it will get rid of *some* bigotry for *some* people, but if someone says "you know, socialism is great, but it would be even better without group X," what is materially going to stop that from being thought of even being the case? What if it really *would* be better for only 1,000,000 people to share the same resources rather than 2,000,000? There are people who believe in socialist practices but only for their group *right now.* Why won't that thinking recur in the future? And even if it only does on a small level—the *individual* level—won't we still need to deal with it individually?
>I think you're too concerned with the surface level distinctions.I think that they serve as important markers that hint at why people think the way they think. We can glean a surprising amount about what is more or less acceptable via surface level distinctions like that. Colorism and beauty standards are a good example of this, I feel.
>That doesn't really matterI 100% agree that it's wrapped up in the overall patriarchy package, but I do think it matters for the reasons above.
>>6385What is there to say? It's really basic. Maleness emerges out of the relations between physical characteristics of sexual dimorphism in humans and the reproduction of human beings, in patriarchal societies such as the one we live in people born with such qualities are relegated to a superior position
>>6396>and the reproduction of human beingsAt last, we have acknowledged the existence of the very text we were told to read.
>>6388Honestly anon, it's funny how much of your outrage about this "breeding stock" term and accusations of it coming from the anon's psychosexual issues is clearly projection.
>>6398These aren't my thoughts, it's what the other poster thinks.
>>6395>Materialism in its current form doesn't strike me as a Unified Field Theory.thats cuz ur dumb
>>6394sure they have a line but its just "support minorities" their solutions are universal to the working class not particular to the minorities, eg universal healthcare not trans specific healthcare, which is why the original shay image is 110% correct
>>6403>eg universal healthcare not trans specific healthcareThis sounds awfully reminiscent of a text quoted in this thread, but what was it called again?
On The Trans Problem? On The Prole Problem? Oh yes, that's it…
>>6395>you know, socialism is great, but it would be even better without group X," what is materially going to stop that from being thought of even being the case? What if it really *would* be better for only 1,000,000 people to share the same resources rather than 2,000,000?these thoughts are embedded in scarcity mindset and the material premise of communism is the construction of productive forces capable of eliminating scarcity
>>6395Ehh I think it serves just fine, the problem with non materialism is that it's always gonna amount to some subjective bullshit where we can shrug our shoulders and be like "maybe".
>what is materially going to stop that from being thought of even being the case?The material conditions having changed to the point that they are no longer conductive to such things
>I think that they serve as important markers that hint at why people think the way they think. We can glean a surprising amount about what is more or less acceptable via surface level distinctions like that. Colorism and beauty standards are a good example of this, I feel.Personal subjectivity is important to understand sure, but it's not really something that needs to supplement materialism as such.
>>6404yeah you get it its too bad anon doesn't. otjq is profoundly universal. he probly thinks its antisemitic
Materialist explanation for transphobia?
>>6408Breeding Conditions
>>6406>The material conditions having changed to the point that they are no longer conductive to such thingsOkay, but what *is* that, that's what I want to know. What is it, and why would it be the solution?
>>6405>these thoughts are embedded in scarcity mindset and the material premise of communism is the construction of productive forces capable of eliminating scarcityBut we live on an exhaustible ball of rock with only so much stuff on it. Productive forces in and of themselves don't eliminate scarcity.
>Productive forces in and of themselves don't eliminate scarcity
<I have no idea what the productive forces are, but I will pretend otherwise
Ultraleft raid?
>>6410>But we live on an exhaustible ball of rock with only so much stuff on it. Productive forces in and of themselves don't eliminate scarcity.scarcity is relative to population size and population size doesn't continue to grow exponentially. there are enough resources on the exhaustible ball of rock that we can produce enough material goods to satisfy the population at its natural carrying capacity in a post scarcity society. it doesn't mean infinite growth it means sufficient growth such that the need for toil and drudgery to meet peoples needs and desires is eliminated, which removes the social necessity of competition and therefore the material foundation of in/out group dynamics
>>6408Britspawn have a faulty gene that they spread worldwide via rape when they colonized the world. This faulty gene causes violent spasms as a primal response to the gaudy colors used in the trans flag.
>>6410>Okay, but what *is* that, that's what I want to know. What is it, and why would it be the solution?You can't predict the future anon, but generally more education and higher economic development lead to less bigotry across the board
>>6415What does this have to do with the concept of "hey, if we kill a few people, all of us can have more stuff because there will be less of us that need the stuff we all have to share?"
>>6419uh did you read the post??
>>6417I like to hope for nicer solutions.
>>6418100% agree. I'm not really expecting any framework to predict the future. I just get a little antsy when people say "well all the bigots will be gone when we achieve communism" without actually stating why. It feels like a handwave.
see you dont have to change peoples minds or even kill them you just have to change the material base for the reproduction of society and then their childrens children wont be bigots anymore
>>6421>I like to hope for nicer solutions.the bourgeoisie like for you to think that too. makes you much easier to kill
>>6422>reproduction of societyThis has something to do with breeding, doesn't it?
>>6420I understand the concept of being able to sustain the population at a specific point, but unless you're saying that anyone will be able to have whatever they want whenever they want it, the idea that "less people means more stuff" will persist.
If this is what you're arguing—that we can all have a yacht and a car collection and a hundred acres if we so desire it—then fine, I hope we get there, but like I said it feels a little handwavey.
>>6421Sure but we've been having a whole conversation, I don't think I've been handwaving it
>>6426We have, and thank you for engaging me in it, I'm always searching for good answers to this question. I don't think you were attempting to dodge it at all so I don't want that to be the takeaway.
I guess my hesitancy simply remains that if materialism is the end-all be-all I would love to see a materialist description of a no-bigotry endpoint. My fear is essentially that we'll be more than capable of addressing future materialist conditions and essentially have no answer for human tribalism, or that said tribalism will get in the way of building the future in the first place (e.g. politics becoming coopted by those who want socialist ideals, but only for some). I have no problem with materialism as a framework, I just want to know what safeguards there are for a rugpull, essentially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialismThere you go mate, because you can't be bothered to read Marxist texts but would still like to pretend you know what the term materialism signifies
>>6189>Rightists love differentiation >The most fundamental difference is that between man and woman>Trans people show that distinction is arbitrary and fluid>Ergo, "total trans death" is necessary for rightists.Yeah, that sounds about right. Thanks.
>>6432I would agree it is this. Male/Female is the most fundamental difference. Ordained by god or whatever. Our bodies display it and it has not changed for millennia. Necessary for reproduction. Built into culture.
The idea that maybe things aren't so black and white, that those distinctions are way more fragile than they were taught is a dangerous idea in the conservative mind. Leads to the idea that maybe other hierarchies are not so rigid either. It's time to retreat behind new reasons why these people aren't actually making a "real" transition. We know that can't happen! Find out the lingering evidence of their birth sex! or just kill em
Although tbh doesn't really explain somewhere like Iran: very conservative but okay with trans? Maybe it comes from their long cultural history in the sciences and drive to medicalize it and then fix it.
>>6451>manExcuse me it’s ma’am!
>>6451what if i dont have any friends
>>6167>early 20th century Germanyand what political economy contradictions were being heightened? Capitalism was in decay ("liberalism on steroids" fascists consume more gender affirming care than trans people desire, wtf)
>try to erase all recordThe collapsing power of traditional ruling class allowed LGBT rights to be recorded into history. But for various reasons, many proletarian revolutions failed, and workers were sacrificed to the satanic altar of capital. This has happened many times before, and we will outlive them, because these soulless "Spartans" are literally abandoning their babies and committing social suicide lol. There is not a single bunker on earth which the Elon Musk transphobes can skitter away to
<When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, … >>6197>This leads one to believe that the current trans movement might not be 100% organic. It has hitched itself to bourgeois medical companies. Mark Fisher's radlib critique of Big Pharma is now being championed by disgusting liberals like RFK jr lol
>>6291>self-sustaining for reasons beyond pure materialismThe earth is now powered by itself because of orgone oscillations, its the '90s! All we need to do is wait for solar panels to be cheap in the free market and our problems are solved, yaaasss!
>I want to hear—in your words, not Marx's"explain why evolution is true without talking about Darwinian natural selection, I am not convinced by people endlessly quoting anti-Creationist theory at me" Ok Boomer
>>6463>capitalism was in decayHow come? How does capitalism decay?
>>6464or something i think
i refuse to read any part of this thread for context because i just don't want to and i'm lazy
i will respond to OP
I feel like it's already been "proven" in so many ways that there is no inherent inequality of people with different sex organs, not in a controlled setting but in a literal setting, women and men are more equal than statistics and graphs imply, just by the random nature of the composition of sex organ/gender identity combinations seem to be. That's not to say that there aren't underlying external factors that may influence a person to behave "in line" with their society's perception of behavior in regards to their sex organs
but
but
the idea that a "man" could totally understand a "woman" is detrimental to the psyop currently being pushed about male dominance and female submissiveness. I feel like there is a concentrated effort that actually is NOT substantiated to link men with power and women with submission. So… yeah that's how i feel in a nutshell shit is a big psyop
>>6167A lot of modern capitalist enterprises use a hierarchy of subcontracting "family businesses" to evade taxes, avoid labor laws and draw on child labor.
https://dissentmagazine.org/article/family-capitalism-and-the-small-business-insurrection Unique IPs: 18