Permanently Deleted
Ooff yeah. You're probably right.
I'll fully admit it's just a dumb thing that popped into my head lol
thank you but if you ask the @VolcelPolice I'm not that pure
Yeah, but just still do it. Had a discussion with a comrade a while ago which in its core was about that tension of power of speech:
Option 1 there are a multitude of individual universes, so you don't know how and what the others feel or see, though: there is some kind of mediation between them depending on material conditions and such (which shapes your conscious). There are therefore multiple Truths
Option 2 there is one objective truth (besides scientific marxism) which means there is to be one Truth to be spread and the power of the powerful is to hold up this objective Truth.
I am the opinion the perspective of option 1 is much more useful and correct, it also makes clear that naturally the companies, the liberal state and such try to push their perspective (and with the power they got it is easier than to push others), but it underlines that there are more perspectives and that it is actual might which makes you heard more or less.
In much the same sense I believe we shouldn't think about whether the bourgeoisie is going to subvert our slogans (they will, even if it doesn't work) but use them and our concepts.
They do. Thats why we need an -ism that directly accuses them of harm against a marginalised group.
I think a lot of libs might stop and think for a second if enough people were like "Woah, that's pretty classist, yikes."
I work at an airport. Everybody hates travelers. It was 100% meant to be a backhanded compliment.
Someone told me that being against microwaves is discriminatory against poor people and i think classist might've been more appropriate
we need something with more bite tho, like a version of cracker for people who hate poor people
Yes exactly. Double down on moralistic arguments or "well I can't help all of them" type arguments.
This would require your average liberal to have more self-reflection than what they've shown.
Is it classist if I want there to be no more poor people :thonk:
Obviously I'm saying it like that as a joke but my point is that I personally avoid saying classist precisely because I think that the form of oppression of the proletariat is different than something like sexism.
It is, but so is every -ism
Classism is linked to things like racism and sexism too, while those things wouldn't disappear if classism went away, they are exasperated by it.
I agree with what you're saying. I have a hard time articulating the difference in my mind aside from whatever concept I was trying to get at with the joke I made.
Maybe I would say that the difference between rich and poor is possessions, the relation to the means of production if you're Marxist, while the difference between sexes, races, etc. is based on something more innate. You can eliminate class because it is an entirely socially constructed difference. When it comes to physical differences people have you can only eliminate the social hierarchy based on those differences, not the traits themselves.
Or something like: There would still be trans people without the existence of transphobia but the proletariat are entirely defined by their oppression under capitalism.
@balloon since you asked too. idk if it makes sense lol
Eh you're right but the word "classist" is really weak and smarmy sounding, we need something with more guilt and bite. Should definitely have the word class or poor in it or something.
