Jeana Arlette (fae boy) (she/they)

none of this denies the persecution of trans people under the nazis, however i'm very uncomfortable with the idea of putting our persecution ahead of Jews under the regime - it's a harmful idea

'first targets', but a month prior, The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was enacted, denying Jews positions in civil service

that same month, the Law against the Overcrowding of German Schools and Universities put restrictions on how many Jews could go to schools

factually incorrect, but plays into the antisemitic trope that a targetted attack against Jews was a 'secondary goal' of the nazi party, rather than their primary motivation

the attack on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in may of 1933 is usually pointed to as evidence of trans people being the

it seems like this is a pretty common misconception on here

just for the sake of anyone stumbling by this:

trans people were early targets of the nazi party; they just weren't 'the first', especially if someone is trying to say that they were targets before Jews, which is not only

specifically, in may of 1933. in april, jews were removed from civil service

trans people were among the first absolutely; the first, not at all - especially when the original post was falling into the trope of denying the primacy of antisemitism in the nazis' motivations

i mean, you can't really find it if it doesn't exist

it's very well established that trans people weren't targets of hitler before, say, jews

actually it isn't

what book makes that claim?

hitler didn't start with trans people - what are you referring to?

those things aren't comparable tho

i think they mean that bringing up israel every time someone mentions antisemitism is itself antisemitic - like, it's a strawman, implying that the only thing Jews are ever upset about is criticism of israel, which is complete nonsense, and ignorant of the actual lived experience of Jewish people

tbh i feel like the concept of 'weaponizing antisemitism' is harmful - antisemitism *is* a weapon; by design it's meant to hurt people

framing it as 'weaponized' makes it seem like ordinary antisemitism is innocuous. it's like MRAs saying that women try to 'weaponize' rape or rape accusations

housing a kind of inherent conflict that gets transcended only by undoing itself

this helps make it....quite antagonistic; adding that to its flexible application of strict categories, i have a hard time finding as much value in it now as i might have before

(2) concludes strict goals, needs, and worldviews based on the class you end up in

to a certain extent, this is present in any kind of identity-group analysis, but as opposed to say, gender, where men and women/enbies might be seen as being in contingent opposition, class tends to be viewed as

same time, they want to view class as a kind of oppositional framework between lower and upper classes

so you end up with a system that (1) people apply flexibly to account for almost any person being a part of whatever class you choose for them, and

yeah, this is more-or-less one reason i've grown less interested in strict class analysis over time: communists have a hard time not conflating 'class' with 'struggle-type' and consequently position 'the working class' as whatever allows them to legitimize their own personal struggle

at the

eh, that's pretty reductive - taiwan doesn't sit very neatly into a western (or eastern) hegemony type of classification, it faces tremendous influence from both the west and (PR)china

To claim that the only way to condemn violent murders is to turn those killed into great national icons after their deaths actually undermines the principle of nonviolence, because it suggests anyone who is not a great person might deserve to be killed.

fundamentally authoritarian, vying for *power* for their own sub-class, rather than freedom for everyone)

involved people (be they leftist, liberal, whatever) to demonstrate that the unified force they advocate for isn't one that really seeks the ambitions of the most powerful subset

(incidentally, i think that's part of why the term 'tankie' gets used when critiquing white-leftists: they're viewed as

opposition to fascism, as opposed to taking steps to *show* that they're allies to racially marginalized people (listening, modifying their behaviour, etc)

so to bring the conversation back around to the term 'tankie', yes, division is bad. but also, part of the responsibility lies on politically

of being racist

like, speaking only for myself, i'm not opposed to working with leftists/communists/etc. - there certainly are individuals i work with (at least offline) that fit the mould, but some leftists act as if their political camp is entitled to allegiance simply by being nominally in

swims around in leftist spaces isn't addressed nearly enough, and often, when it gets called out, the narrative gets swung around by (white) leftists who claim that Black critics are being needlessly divisive, as opposed to actually accepting that being a leftist doesn't automatically absolve you

mhm, this is more-or-less my perspective.

white supremacy (famously) creeps into every part of the political spectrum, because it's a systemic issue

i'm sympathetic to the frustration that some leftists have towards the pejorative usage of the term 'tankie', but the racism that

in much the same way, tankies are typically viewed as cowardly authoritarians who would rather seize power for themselves than upend oppressive structures

so, you know, also a pejorative

it is actually pretty funny that this discourse has been going around, since the term 'tankie' is being viewed as limp and as vague as...well, the term 'liberal' is

but by a group of people that would like to think the latter term holds some kind of unique precision when they apply it pejoratively

tbf if you spend enough time on the internet, every term is like that

those were historians, yeah - although pretty unorthodox ones; why'd you pick them?

well, i mentioned professional historians, but then you brought up someone who wasn't a part of that group, so i'm not really sure of the relevance

what does he have to do with what i said?