people turning their back to reddit are no refugees. They are not fleeing war or violence for instance. I know that this is meant to be a metaphor, but still i kind of dislike the use here. The definition of a refugee according to the UN:
Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country.
They often have had to flee with little more than the clothes on their back, leaving behind homes, possessions, jobs and loved ones.
also thanks for the recommendation, @NormieGirl@lemmy.perthchat.org
hmm, i don’t have much experience about cross instance moderation work, but i trust the experience of @NormieGirl@lemmy.perthchat.org
–> so yes, i would be very happy to welcome you in the moderation team!
but then the problem is that for instance women are excluded from such movement (probably?) -> and i think the criticism of women in such movements is very important.
so yes i agree that leftist men need to do some work in that area, but i think it is better when noone is excluded from that.
For instance, as @Grograman@sopuli.xyz said:
A lot of issues that men face are directly because of the patriarchy so dismantling it is the only way to fight for men’s rights. Not being taken seriously in sexual assaults, not being equally considered for custody, not being able to express emotions - all of these come from the bullshit patriarchal view of strong men and weak women that the patriarchy enforces. It’s all the same fight.
I think this is important to understand for all people, not only for men. and i think the quality of understanding is higher when all views are included, from all genders.
at the same time:
i recommend to read JJ Bola’s book “Mask Off : Masculinity Redefined”.
Probably a good short version is “Why toxic masculinity hurts men: JJ Bola explains all” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPg-ZGqvb8
i think this is a good starting point in dismantling patriarchy. But still, dismantling patriarchy is very important.
As a male leftist, i’m critical about that - i think the biggest danger of such a group is that they would not be able to dismantle patriarchy and male supremacy behavior. So the danger would be: if queerfeminist activists criticize this mens group because of patriarchy, their response is “yes, thanks for the critique, we fix that” - but everything stays the same because those men care more about the feminist label and the reputation and the feeling of being feminist than the actual dismantling of male supremacy and patriarchy in leftist groups.
For instance: currently, leftwing groups also have sometimes sexual violence towards women or queer people. From experience (as a male leftist), what happens in many cases is that - especially men - have a bad/superficial understanding of patriarchy and therefore do not stand in solidarity to victims of sexual violence. Patriarchy means that it is quite likely some male friends either have been abusive in the past - or will be abusive in the future. This is a consequence from our society not explaining how good sexual consensus work, how manipulative some behavior can be, etc.
So in short: it is quite likely that those men would not held their friends accountable and talk about how patriarchy works etc, and NOT make sure that something like that (patriarchal behavior) doesn’t happen again.
tldr: as a male leftist working in this area, i am not sure if this group would be able to gain the necessary knowledge about patriarchy, sexual violence, abusive behavior, and other aspects of “toxic” masculinity.
response to the linked github ticket:
instead of limiting the posts, i think the easiest way would be to just adapt the lemmy ranking algorithm https://join-lemmy.org/docs/en/about/ranking.html to include the amount of posts per user and per community. So that it is also logratithmic.
this is what i mean with the above post, that the more a user posts, slowly the ranking decreases for each post. Also for the community.
this is a better solution
i think it makes also sense for the ones you subscribe to. for instance, i have usually like 5 posts from lemmygrad in my feed because they have both many posts and many upvotes - which means high liklihood that their post lands in a high position in the feed.
compare that to instances which are for instance very new and get not many posts and not many upvotes, or only not many upvotes. --> i don’t see them much on my timeline
–> so i think applying that on all communities increases diversity overall, in the lemmyverse
Many things about “Political correctness” have some theory behind. So focusing only on “the latest words” without understanding the theory is not good. And with theory, i mean for instance how racism works on a structural level, how it is institutionalized, how people grow up with subtle racism.
However, the way our society works, usually there is not much time to understand the theory, so therefore what remains (that is, the only thing many people have energy for) is a notice.
And specifically about racism, many people (including leftist people) usually think they can’t be racist because they fight against the racist society or nazis or right wing people. But they (leftist, progressive people) forget that racism can also be very subtle. Or it can be structurally: so not understanding how black people experience racism (and that is very complicated to understand, trust me) is sometimes hurtful because white people accidentally act in hurtful ways without knowing it is hurtful.
So one big problem black people have when they want to talk about racism is that white, progressive people act like the black person thinks they are right wing kind of racist. This is even more difficult when black people are frustrated because they have to explain the same thing many times to many different white people.
so in essence: i think the biggest thing you can do is NOT to focus on the latest words which are politically incorrect and however understand the political structure behind that. So understand the oppression marginalized people feel. read books. listen to what they say.
Because, when you have a systematic understanding of how marginalized people are oppressed, it is MUCH easier to talk about for black people. Because when black people criticize you, they obviously also don’t want to hurt your feelings but instead they want political change. They want white people to understand how their oppression works.
And one thing that is usually forgotten when talking about the oppression of marginalized people: people have many different opinions. For instance, Black people also sometimes do not agree with each other when talking about the oppression of black people. So you also have to understand their perspective from a inter-sectional point of view. So, for instance: Black people who experience classism because they grew up very poor have a much different perspective on how racism works compared to black celebrities. For Black women it is also very different, because of the intersection of racism and sexism. For queer jewish people who grew up in an orthodox familiy it is also much different. In general, people have a much different history, for instance also because of how their home country.
as far as i know, yes lemmygrad and lemmy.ml are operated by the same people. And i think this was a deliberate decision to create a seperate instance: the admins knew that such discussions would arise and they knew people would block/criticize tankie-content. So having a generalist instance like lemmy.ml makes it easier for people to like lemmy.
i don’t trust the developers or tankies in general.
Actual working-class democracy is so incomprehensible to westerners that they can’t imagine a system that’s responsive to its people without riots. This is because governments are not neutral, multi-party bourgeois democracies are in fact capitalist dictatorships, while one-party socialist states are worker’s dictatorships. I suggest reading this thread on worker’s congresses to learn about just one such organ of China’s responsive democracy.
please, don’t call me westerner, altough i live in such a country. This term doesn’t differentiate between any political spectrum and simplifies a lot. Please don’t use it, at least not for me.
For instance i organize in some leftist anarchocommunist organization and therefore i know how alternative decision making systems can work. I have experienced difficult times where these alternative form of organizing can survive. (so no power abuse and such).
So its not about lack of imagination, its about trust. Belief in anarchism means for me the belief that every person with big power probably will abuse this power in some kind of another. I don’t think this is different in any countries.
An actual example from i think soviet russia: i think emma goldman as well as other anarchists have visited the early days of the russian revolution (so i refer here to a book from 1924). There, she writes that there have been some politicial disputes in the communist party and instead of solving them with good consensus the bolshewiki tried to remove those people from power positions.
The above mentioned anarchocommunist organization has not done that even with heavy conflicts. That’s the reason i trust them.
But i don’t trust regular stalinist/leninist organizations because they have the political history of solving dispute with power abuse. I don’t trust them because the only way of preventing power abuse from any person is to simply not give one person much political power. That’s the reason why i don’t trust stalinist/leninist organizations, because they usually have a very centralist strategic approach.
I don’t trust them because they have a strong belief that their viewpoint is the correct one, for instance when i view the work of the local Marxist leninist party. So when faced with criticism, instead of trying to understand the criticism and fixing it, they react with “this divides leftists”.
Because of this political history, i have deep deep trust problems. It’s not about excluding rich people (that would be fine for me), it’s about actual decision making power by workers.
The NPC is currently 25% women, so they do have some work yet to do in that area.
I am not sure who “they” refers to, but in case it is women: i disagree, i see the most responsibility in the people having most power. Xi Jinping or Li Keqiang could stepping down from their position with the condition that a poor working class female worker can fulfill this position.
But they don’t do it because then they would have much less political influence. And that is what i mean by political power. Xi Jinping or Li Keqiang have political power and they use it for their moral beliefs, as long as they don’t loose political power.
That’s the reason why i am anarchist. i think many many people would act very similar as Xi Jinping or Li Keqiang in this position. Therefore the only good alternative is to reduce such positions of power or at least regularly change it.
According to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Keqiang this person has had political power for 10 years. That is a very long time, very similar to for instance some western government. So china has to me very similar problems in terms of power and democracy.
Also doing better than the US, Ireland, Greece, and a lot of others. And of course socialist Cuba is the model for all countries to emulate with respect to women’s rights.
Yes, that is no suprise and i completely understand that. But still, i see structural sexism in casea of china because i expect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Keqiang or some person in a similar powerful position to be replaced by a female worker.
in the above anarchocommunist organization, it is very common to regularly change positions of power (for instance people talking to the press or something). This is active work against power abuse because people are not used to be in positions of power. But when you are 10 years in the same position of power, this changes your viewpoint.
ah and my question is basically: @firstname.lastname@example.org what do you think about what i’ve said above?
my understanding of china so far is that the solution to that is basically discussion in the party of china. So parties in china are very big compared to other countries and thefore the political discussion happens inside the party. big demonstrations for instance which would encourage such discussions are not that common.
i don’t know much about how these discussions are in practice but i imagine that the older generations have much more actual power in these discussions, altough the younger generation might be present. For instance because the older generation is represented by powerful positions (Xi Jinping or Li Keqiang or something).
Another example for this kind of struggle is (i imagine) structural sexism or female persons in power positions. For instance, i saw the list of government people on wikipedia which all are male or use male pronouns. There are zero female politicians in positions of high power it seems, for instance the president.
So i assume the struggle works very similar to other struggles in other countries, for instance germany - politicians in power like to talk about such things but don’t actually want to change something because change usually decreases their power.
This lack of political power leads sometimes to riots, for instance the stonewall riot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots - and i think in china something like that would be very impossible because it would be seen as danger of counterrevolution and the persons in power would say that persons can participate in the political debate in the party. therefore such demonstrations would probably be shut down very soon and people would be thrown into prison and such.
So when people want real change (so for instance female politicians in high positions of power) instead of endless debates without changes, in “western” countries the solution to that is to start a riot to gain attention and force a response. When your voice is unheard, your only solution is to start a riot. and this is what happened at the stonewall riot.
So in short: this is a good example why i don’t trust china. communism/socialism is interesting but the big authoritative rule in china is bad because riots and demonstrations are healthy for democracies. So for me it is very clear that communist states also have problems but my impression so far on the discussion regarding communist states is not to be open about these problems and instead give “china is great” vibes because they view people being critical with being non-communists. And to be honest i don’t know what i should think of that.
russia is usually considered to be socialist, i think.
and yes i know the “jana from kassel” case (and i agree that comparing their own actions to antifascists from nazi germany is also used by non-legitimate protests ) but i don’t think it is good to throw such persons into the prison.
especially, because for instance in germany, the covid management from the german government is really horrible (big factories are still open) - so altough i think it is good to disturb “jana from kassel” in her speech, i don’t think the government/police should do that.
given that the covid management and also for instance the fight against nazis in germany isn’t really effective, i don’t trust them in the fight against “jana from kassel”.
i just think it is ridiculos to throw people into the prison in the above case. in general authorative solutions like surveilance and throwing people in the prison are no proper solutions i think because it doesn’t deal with the root cause, it doesn’t improve the situation.
So because racism and being racist is rather severe, people usually refuse to acknowledge it, the first time. So a common response when people are confronted about a subtle racist stereotype is to say that they have a black friend or had a black girlfriend, and therefore can’t be racist. So they understand the “hey, you are here a little racist” as “hey, you’re racist, nazi”. They don’t see that racism can be subtle.
There exist alternatives that also are very descriptive of the concepts they abstract
the point is not to pretend it did not happen, it is to avoid the subtle negative connotation. When one has no experience with black people but works a lot in tech, the term “blacklist” will form the opinion and behavior regarding black people. This person will think it is more likely, black people do negative things like robbery, etc.
the person alice hasters who has written at length on this topic germany cites one example, where she was on a market and wanted to look at stuff to buy, but the selling person thought alice intended to rob him. So he shouted alice should go away. When alice said she was interested to buy things and even has a white person besides her to “prove” that she was not intended to rob him, he was fine with it. But he didn’t even excuse himself for this language. Such things are more likely when terms like whitelist is used for positive things and blacklist is used for negative things. Because the color black is not inherently bad, so why is a blacklist bad?
I also suggest to read the draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html where these things are explained.
Yes, i was in bielefeld. It is a beautiful city.
To explain: basically, in germany there is this joke about bielefeld not existing. Here is a wikipedia article on that i just found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy
won’t deny that, but my point is that comparing yourself to people fleeing war is not that great