I don't understand why some of my skinfolk want to use pure aggrievment as some sort of substitute for actual politics.
Making fun of a homeless whitey isn't substantive. I don't get anything out of cruelty. I'm just not that kind of person. I find joy in making fun of the actual chuds in my life who suffer as a direct result of their own politics.
Maybe because the left is inundated with the stench of failure, a lack of an alternative leads only to venting, some of which can be unhealthy
It's university mindset. The only things academics like maybe more than saying how right they are is telling others how wrong they are. The current American iteration of the left is predominantly made up and led by people who came of age in that environment.
It's the direct result of colleges that teach intersectionality without class. I honestly think that race reductionism has been one of the biggest fuels for fascism in the past decade.
Tweets with less than 10,000 interactions should be banned from posting
this view is far more common than it looks from this tweet
i've seen some brazilian wakanda twitter shit that drove me fucking crazy
Can you really colonize if you don’t own land tho? Seems more like squatting than anything
I mean your presence helps legitimise the colonial occupation of stolen land. Not that you really have a choice if you don't have the means for housing let alone migration.
I don't really agree with this take.
To be a coloniser you must have power that you can exert over others. Homeless people have no power. A white homeless person simply existing does not exert any power over indigenous people.
Australia is a settler colonial country that was mostly convicts. The convicts had no choice to be there but their presence was what maintained and fueled the colonization. Homeless people are still (a small) part of the colonial force whether they want to be or not.
So then it should be esablished that white homeless people in settler colonial countries by themselves have no power. But the settler state uses their existence as a way to legitimise its own power. These aren't quite the same thing, which is what I thought your original comment was conflating.
The original comment includes any non land owner - eg renter and was suggesting ownership is all that is needed to be a coloniser
Can you really colonize if you don’t own land tho? Seems more like squatting than anything
Colonial forces are obviously much more than land ownership, it's an oppressive structure ingrained in society like racism, patriarchy, cisheteronormativity, etc. You passively contribute to it if you are part of the oppressor class.
A homeless man can still contribute to the patriarchy, settler colonialism, cisheteronormativity, etc
A homeless man can still contribute to the patriarchy, settler colonialism, cisheteronormativity, etc
Upon further reflection I agree but I think we should not be pointing to homeless and poor people as the oppressors in society. Your contribution to these systems is determined by the amount of power you have, and the bourgeosie and the state make way bigger contributions and attacking them will be way more effective than attacking disenfranchised people.
I guess I have just seen too much of 'white privelage' being used to attack poor white people.
yeah definitely its really not worth bringing up normally unless you are having a nuanced discussion on /why/ homeless people are settlers - i.e. being the powerless underclass settlers for powerful capitalist colonisers
I was really trying to address the whack take on land ownership, homeless people being the extreme end of this. the original comment incorrectly conflates land ownership and being a settler
the solution to being anti-colonial if youre a settler is the same solution to being anti-racist if youre white or anti-misogynistic if youre a male. don't abuse the privilege and actively resist and fight it within your means. I figure most homeless people aren't really in a position to do much so really nothing.
it's not CIA diviseness, it's marcus garvey shit
unless garvey was CIA
well maybe he was
Conservative: "I think the homeless should die"
Liberal: "Please, call them 'houseless', but I agree."
"Houseless" also seems like it's going the wrong way on the euphemism treadmill.
I'm kinda struggling to see how you'd bring in stuff to help homeless people without having some empathy for all homeless people. Homeless people have fuck all say in society and tend to die stupidly young. I kinda think if you're singling out a sorta subset of homeless people based on characteristics they have no say over and saying 'but fuck those guys' you're probably not that fussed about any homeless people.
We're only strong together, whites and blacks and indigenous and asians and whoever else I mightve missed we only have eachother and we need to rely on and support eachother across racial bounds or our movement will always fail.
That's a brain on identity politics too and from reading that god awful Settlers book.
is there something wrong with settlers? I haven't read but it gets rec'd an awful lot.
wait did settlers create 'labor aristocracy'???
I don't think that disqualifies the book outright though.
It’s liberty or it’s death. It’s freedom for everyone or freedom for no one.
Black liberal dunking on the homeless to compensate for small penis, more at 11.
Actually according to studies it's your brain on being taught about white privilege.
Class education pls.
you know we can have both right? this is a rando with a bad take. who cares.
My point is that teaching people this sort of thing without a better framework is actively damaging.
most people who learn about idpol also know about class and intersectionality though.
The problem is libs. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_happens_when_you_educate_liberals_about_white_privilege
https://twitter.com/PurelyPurgatory/status/1319725371076546561 very shocked at the reaction. lol
