No.525479
>>525473it's the obama-era "liberal" bible
No.525481
The liberal bible is the constitution or civil code or whatever pass for fundamental law in your god forsaken country. Liberalism isn't about shitposting on twitter, it's about creating the most stable system for capitalism. Harry Potter is in my opinion not liberal at all as sorcerers exercise their extremely dangerous powers without much control whatsoever from any form of institution and no institution at all from the non sorcerer world, and they look down on the normies. The only unrealistic thing in Harry Potter is how the guys with the unlimited magical powers didn't enslave us all or created a liberal system where they hold the cards but you think you still have agency
No.525482
>>525473isn't harry potter incredibly racist and pro slavery
No.525483
is it weird that I never read liberal theory?
No.525486
>>525485old skool libs wanted to abolish slavery
the french revolutionaries formally abolished slavery in haiti before napoleon restored it
No.525487
>>525483read the american deceleration of independence.
No.525488
>>525481harry potter world has the wizengamot and wizards infamously cant do magic in certain contexts (most notably in front of muggles)
No.525489
>>525486napoleon is the natural state of unchecked liberalism
No.525492
>>525488So yeah, without much control is what I said, and that's not much, in a realistic liberal world, the sorcerers would have come to some agreement with the civil government and they would be working together, not having a ministry of magical bullshit. Harry Potter pleases people because it's not liberal, it's about some chosen one asshole member of a secret society deciding the fate of history. Liberalism is about capitalism + institutions in balance who keep it existing, it's resilient, cold, heartless and anti individual. But then again gringos will call an apple liberal.
No.525554
>>525549Bashar is an horcrux, this is why the CIA is keeping him alive
No.525653
>>525652
what are trans-women
No.525671
>>525644>muh vulnerable womenVulnerable to the competion transwomen represent. Nowadays more and more men are preferring them to "natural" women and this is making someone bitter…
No.525681
>>525674
*women who have abandoned their disguise as men
No.525684
>>525682
The bathroom question could have been resolved by gender neutral bathrooms so that women wouldnt have to feel pressured to let transgender women use the women's bathroom.
Gender dysphoria is an identity disorder and it can only be resolved by hormone therapy.
Genital mutilation for kids is legal in the form of infant circumcision. Nobody has any right to complain about one while the other is still legal.
Professional sports are bourgeois.
You are wrong on every point.
No.525685
>>525682
>you are born with a body thats yours and thats it.
There are some people who actually experience a mismatch though, and surprisingly, that cause them distress. Distress that transitioning diminishes. What do with thoses people then? Is ruining kids brain with antidepressants really better than letting them access hormone treatment? Or do you just hope they'll have the elegancy to off themselves so they would not offend the holy two genders?
No.525687
>>525686
You didn't answer my question. What to do with people experiencing gender dysphoria? Just pretend they don't exist, like Kadyrov is denying gay people exist in Chechenya?
No.525692
>>525690
Expanding individual freedom is literally entire point of socialist movement.
No.525697
>>525688
I think there is more to it than the working or dysfunction off the family unit under capitalism.
The phenomenon isn't a pure capitalist product, even though its expression is influenced by material conditions like pretty much everything. Some historical records mention the case of someone's will deemed invalid on the ground of said person being a nutcase… for displaying what we would call FtM behavior, say crossdressing and insisting to be treated a woman even though being born male. And that was in feudal times.
Main diferences with today situations are: - General knowledge and perspective about mental health changed, people are actually trying to understand and treat mental health issues beside locking anybody too weird in a crankhouse
-Seculariation made it so people have overall less use of religion as literal copium when they feel something wrong. In a way, conservatards telling transpeople to seek Jesus is just a more socially acceptable way to drink the sorrow away or take meth.
-Medical technology evolved so it's actually possible to being physically closer to the other sex.
No.525725
>>525712
>i think this is the problem. relying on personal wills and self-perceptions
will as in inheritance Anon. He made a testament that was deemed null and void because he was deemed crazy.
>more common in proletariat households than in bourgeois households?
As I said the material conditions affect the phenomenon's exression but aren't its etiology.
More common in proletariat households doesn't mean it's absent bourgeois households.
Banishing smoking would statistically drastically diminish lung cancer, but wouldn't make it entirely dissapear.
>sex is a biological trait. its not about sex, its about gender
If it was only about that, then people suffering from gender dysphoria would just stick to crossdressing, they wouldn't go to great lenght to have their genital altered. That is, imo, the main difference between transgenders and transtrenders. There is a world apart between being just enjoying behaving/being treated as the other sex and actually being disgusted and distressed over having a dick to the point you'd slice your wrists over it.
No.525742
>>525652
Feminism is actually for humanity. Patriarchy hurts men too by putting unrealistic cultural expectations on them. Turns out forcing all men to live up to the gigachad patriarch father superhero soldier stereotype is bad for the mental health of most men, who simply aren't that kinda guy.
>>525682
I used to think like this but you're wrong. You're making a very surface level analysis that seems like "common sense" to you but I encourage you to keep digging. Talk to more trans people. It's kind of ironic people say trans people are "mutilating" their bodies but these same people don't (usually) say the same thing for tattoos, or piercings or plastic surgery. Another thing about this "mutilation" dialogue is it limits the possibilities for trans people to what our current level of medical technology is. Also for decades intersex kids were forced to appear either as male or female by their parents, and had their second set of genitals removed, often against their will. But because that was a cisheteronormative process, nobody called it mutilation. Trans people existing is victimless, and not a crime (yet), but the cishet people who want to force trans people to detransition, or to prevent them transitioning in the first place, like to pretend that they're saving the trans people from themselves. It's very insidious. And at the same time they frame trans people as predators and perverts trying to sneak into the "wrong" bathroom. I noticed it tends to go 1 way. Transfem in womens bathrooms is treated as a lot more offensive than transmasc in mens bathrooms. I remember an instance where a trans woman was beaten in a mens' restroom after being forced to use the mens' restroom. So much for "saving women from violence"
Cis people are often also the victims of transphobic violence (pics related).
Instead of worrying about the "optics" of being seen as "weird" for defending trans people, maybe you should just join the growing movement to defend trans people from transphobic violence.
No.525748
When a "minority" loses, everybody loses
When a "minority" is oppressed, everybody is oppressed
No.525751
>>525748I prefer "marginalized" over "minority" to make this more clear. Marginalized people are necessarily oppressed. Minorities are not necessarily oppressed. For example, the bourgeoisie are always a minority in capitalist society, but they are not oppressed. Marginalized people are oppressed.
No.525752
>>525742>Feminism is actually for humanity.Which includes the petit-bourgeois and bourgeois. No thanks!
No.525753
>>525752The bourgeois-patriarchal superstructure hurts all women, and you can't have true feminism without socialism. Bourgeois feminism is reactionary.
No.525756
>>525753>all womenYou just keep repeating your movement is interclassist.
No.525760
>>525752>>Feminism is actually for humanity.>Which includes the petit-bourgeois and bourgeois. No thanks!Did you know bourgeois and petit-bourgeois breath? Do you think just because they breathe everybody should not do the same? What is your logic?
No.525768
>>525765
hey dipshit maybe when trans people do violent crime you should ignore it just like you ignore every other group's examples of violent crime
No.525770
>>525768I bet they are very concerned about a certain group's violent crimes, specifically a group making up 13% of the population.
No.525779
>>525756stop being deliberately obtuse
No.525781
>>525760If it helps any class besides the proletarian I'm not interested and you should stop wasting the proletariat's time too.
No.525784
>>525688
>socialism cares about the collective and not minorities and particulars
Stupid. Socialism only cares about a single group, the proletariat, which happens to be a minority.
No.525789
>>525781>If it helps any class besides the proletarian I'm not interestedBreathing helps both classes, should the proletarian stop breathing because every human breathes?
You did not awnser the question
No.525795
>>525788
>marginalized people are arrested/accused/convicted at a higher rate for crimes they may or may not have actually committed and I view this as evidence that they should continue to be marginalized
No.525799
>>525789Because I don't entertain rhetorical questions. You think the proletariat has enough time to defend every cause under the sun?
When faced with critical periods, as in recent times, the middle-class must find a crutch to rely upon, to find a lifeline to avoid being proletarianized. This it does by recruiting proletarians to fight for its cause, since it is impotent on its own. This is what these causes are, a guise for middle-class elements to ideologically delude the proletarian class in order to use it to pass reforms that will save the petit-bourgeois from doom by preserving its small capital (via welfare, free services, regulations, etc).
No.525801
>>525799figures like lenin partially reconsidered this after discussions with soviet feminists. yes idpol sucks, but theres a difference between dumb shit like "trumps administration is too white and male! he should have more transgender drone pilots!", and just telling you not to say slurs
No.525803
>>525799>You think the proletariat has enough time to defend every cause under the sun?the ""proletariat"" should have time to resolve real problems, instead of just ignoring them. 2 + 2 = 4, this has nothing to do with marxism, but if people think 2 + 2 = 5, then they are objective wrong.
>This it does by recruiting proletarians to fight for its causeFeminism is not a "middle class" cause. Is a humanity cause, as said from the begning of this discussion.
> pass reforms that will save the petit-bourgeois from doom by preserving its small capital (via welfare, free services, regulations, etc).What does any of this have to do with LGBT rights or woman rights though.
There is no "middle class" that plans or acts in a certain program or ideology to controll the "bottom class". There is bourgeoisie class and proletarian class. The proletarian class is a unorganized mass of different people. The bourgeoisie class is organized to mantain the working class subjugated.
No.525807
>>525799This is literally just splitting, you're harming leftism whether you intend to or not.
No.525810
>>525807>splitting if you arent pushing for class collaborationismcmon now
No.525812
>>525810Show me where Marx railed against 'the middle class' (by which you mean anyone with a home or a college degree) exactly?
No.525814
>>525812nta but 'middle class' and 'petit bourgeois' are identical terms today. in england in the 1800s between the aristocracy at the top and the proletariat at the bottom, both the bourgeoisie proper and pb were referred to as 'the middle classes'
>every section of the middle class from the "highly genteel" annuitant and Fundholder who looks upon all sorts of business as vulgar, to the little shopkeeper and lawyer's clerk.https://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME1912en.htmlhence why marx in another article also notes that the bourgeoisie is only 'the highest stratum of the middle classes'
>the bourgeoisie —which is only the highest stratum of the middle classeshttp://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0857en.htmlwhen aristocrats and landlords do not form an opposing side against the bourgeoisie, the term 'middle class' now refers exclusively to the petit bourgeoisie, which is now in the middle between the two other great classes of society - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
No.525818
>>525814That's clearly not what people mean by 'middle class' today though. There is no more distinct aristocrat class, just a subsection of the bourgeois. Glownonymous is mixing heinously that idea with the modern 'middle class' which is more a status identifier than anything with a material basis. It's just born from the same fallacy as the 'conservative white working class' mythos.
No.525819
>>525814>nta but 'middle class' and 'petit bourgeois' are identical terms today.NTA, but what is the official definition of "middle class". I will copy paste this article about the definition of middle-class from GLOWIEpedia:
>Marxism defines social classes according to their relationship with the means of production. The main basis of social class division of Marxism: the possession of means of production, the role and position it plays in social labor organization (production process), the distribution of wealth and resources and the amount. The "middle class" is said to be the class below the ruling class and above the proletariat in the Marxist social schema and is synonymous with the term "petite-" or "petty-bourgeoisie". Marxist writers have used the term in two distinct but related ways.[22] In the first sense, it is used for the bourgeoisie (the urban merchant and professional class) that arose between the aristocracy and the proletariat in the waning years of feudalism in the Marxist model. Vladimir Lenin stated that the "peasantry … in Russia constitute eight- or nine-tenths of the petty bourgeoisie".The above is basically what you mentioned
> Marxist writers define the petite bourgeoisie as primarily comprising (as the name implies) owners of small to medium-sized businesses, who derive their income from the exploitation of wage-laborers (and who are in turn exploited by the "big" bourgeoisie i.e. bankers, owners of large corporate trusts, etc.) as well as the highly educated professional class of doctors, engineers, architects, lawyers, university professors, salaried middle-management of capitalist enterprises of all sizes, etc. – as the "middle class" which stands between the ruling capitalist "owners of the means of production" and the working class (whose income is derived solely from hourly wages).So, from that definition, to be a middle class or petite bourgeoisie you need to:
1) Exploit the work of other wage-laborers (aka the proletariat), and also be exploited by the bourgeoisie
And/or
2) be the holders of human capital, be professionalized, higher educate (doctors, engineers, architects, lawyers, university, etc)
No.525820
>>525819 (me)
While the 1 reason is inexcusable, since exploiting the labor of other workers is the definition of bourgeoisie act, the reason 2 is unavoidable in the modern era.
If you are not professionalized, there will be less and less options of work to you, you will be forced into unemployment because of automation and the advancement of technology.
In the future, there will be no "proletariat" by this definition presented, only a highly educated class that have nothing but their human capital, their knowledge, and opposite class, the bourgeoisie class, holders of the means of production, that exploits the labor of this "middle class".
No.525833
>>525799>we can't defend marginalized people (in general) because a tiny percentage of them might be bourgeoisyou're an idiot. if the proletariat fights the bourgeoisie while protecting the marginalized, then that means it will fight the bourgeoisie
in general. If there are bourgeois people who happen to come from marginalized groups, those people aren't really marginalized because their bourgeois privilege saves them from marginalization. A trans billionaire is not the same as a trans proletarian.
No.525841
>>525833Not disagreeing. I'm against interclassist movements, not against defending proletarians who happen to be queer.
No.526018
>>525644You say that like a lot of TERFs aren't liberal.
No.526173
>>525841so then there's no problem
No.526255
>post one liner shitpost
>come back to troomer vs twerfp debate
do americans really?
No.526269
>is harry potter the liberal bible?
Americans think that liberalism is literally communism but the liberal bible is basic economics.
No.526285
>>526255Don't play dumb, you know what you did.
No.526293
Harry Potter = Liberal Bible
Warrior Cats = Leftist (furry albeit) Bible
What YA novel series would be the Chvd Bible
No.526299
>>526298
Well go ahead and post it then. I generally agree with RuPaul to be honest, we're all wearing drag in some form baby!
No.526302
>>526300>Blocked in my countryBoo
Unique IPs: 31