No one “valorizes” the hatred of men. The hatred of men is a completely social phenomenon. It affects virtually no one and has virtually no significant on society. Just bringing up the fact of its existence is pointless, much less trying to analyze it. The goth subculture has had more influence on society than women who hate men. This entire talking point is a product of the misogynistic manosphere and feeds directly into incel narratives.

I repeat: by shifting discussion from the systemic reality of misogyny to the mythological fiction of “misandry” you are hijacking the focus from that of women’s emancipation toward that of patriarchal retrenchment even if you try to obfuscate it with a veneer of concern about the harmful effects patriarchy.

We don’t need discussions about how colonialism hurts colonists. We don’t need discussions about how slavery hurts slave owners. We don’t need discussions about how fascism hurts fascists. A system harming those that perpetrate it is an accident of its poor design; not an intention of its designers. Ergo their oppression at its hands isn’t relevant beyond being used as a reminder that the system is poorly designed.

Pollutant wastes producing slop that steals from artists to feed the profit of fascists.

Western AI is a con.

I’m going to be frank with you: I will never trust the intentions of anyone who will look at the systemic oppression of women through patriarchy & misogyny and has the audacity to ask, “What about men?”

Because regardless of your intentions these discussions end up hijacking the narrative and reorienting away from the oppression of women to prioritize men as the focus. This ends up being just another case of women’s issues being sidelined by men’s concerns. There’s nothing “feminist” about this; it’s erasure.

Acknowledging the power imbalance between men and women is vital to understanding the systemic nature of patriarchy. If you can’t do this any analysis you try to make is going to be based purely on vibes rather than material conditions.

Yes, patriarchy does negatively impact men. But why does this deserve to be discussed? What benefit does it bring to feminist analysis or theory? How does pivoting away from the many ways women constantly suffer under patriarchy to the far fewer ones men sometimes suffer under patriarchy help us combat, dismantle, or replace patriarchy? How does this help bring us closer to gender equality - or even gender abolition?

It doesn’t. It hijacks the narrative. It weakens the voices of women to amplify the voices of men. In the end this just recreates the conditions of misogyny; men are once again being elevated above women.

Capitalism hurts the bourgeoisie too, you know. Capitalists also experience alienation leading to depression from loss of community. Should we pivot away from the exploitation of workers to discuss suicide rates among the elite? Is that a conversation worth having? Will it bring us closer to socialism?

Their idea of keeping women “safe” involves chaining women to the stove.

The capitalists would invade it and probably destroy it if it wasn’t able to build a state in time to protect itself.

lol

lmao, even

America was all those things, though.

It was already an established bourgeois society with a liberal democratic model of governance. The growth of this society, however, was being constrained by the British Parliament - who had established the Thirteen Colonies for the purposes of extraction to the benefit of Britain. This put the British aristocracy at odds with the American settlers and created a class conflict of interests; with Americans settlers wanting to expand their profits by pushing deeper into the territory of indigenous peoples’ and rival empires while the British aristocracy wanted to safeguard their resource farms in America to fuel what was really important to them: their estates in the British Isles.

While the labor movement may have been nonexistent at this point in this time there was still a growing abolitionist movement to consider. Chattel slavery was used throughout the colonies and played an integral role in the colonial modes of production. This was a direct threat to bourgeois interests and it’s why despite having many champions slavery wasn’t abolished when the USA was established. The Founding Fathers even admitted that they couldn’t oppose slavery, despite disagreeing with it on moral grounds, because it benefited them directly.

As for imperialism, what did America do right after gaining independence? What was doing while fighting for independence? What was it doing even while it was part of the British Empire as a colony? Expanding violently & rapidly to take as much land and resources as possible, projecting power wherever it could, pushing rival empires out of its sphere of influence, enslaving those countries it either couldn’t conquer or didn’t want to conquer.

The American project of empire-building was 100% the original incarnation of fascism and it’s why Herzl, Mussolini, and Hitler copied our homework.

When you’re raised in a society that encourages men to view women as property, sex objects, baby makers, or something to mock it’s fairly common for the average man to belittle and infantilize women. I’m never shocked by it anymore, just disappointed.

Many such cases, unfortunately.

Disagree on the US specifically. If anything the USA was the original fascist state.

This is the first time I’ve heard someone pin the USSR’s demise on federalism. How exactly do you figure this played a role in the downfall of the Soviet Union?

Fascists are notorious for their disregard of human life regardless of who the humans in question are. It’s a grossly misanthropic ideology.

The Mars Trilogy sounds interesting. I’ll have to give it a try, thanks.

I prefer flawed but optimistic sci-fi than outright utopian, personally.

I’m currently writing two separate sci-fi settings; one set in a socialist state and the other in a communist society. I’m taking great pains to represent them positively without making them seem perfect so as to be more believable.

We need more hopeful, optimistic, and left-wing sci-fi future settings that are still engaging & grounded in reality.

based

Cravings are normal. It’s why changing your diet is so hard.

I think material conditions should determine whether a nation needs to be liberated or not.

It’s not a liberation if they aren’t oppressed, nor is it a liberation if the “liberators” are just going to oppress them in the same way.

Okay the cat part is kinda cringe but they have a point: Israel can indoctrinate as many children into being murderous pedophiles as it wants but there will always be those who escape the programming. Most of them will probably end up as liberals who think they can UwUify Zionism into something progressive but some particularly based individuals will be able to see through that bullshit and recognize the white supremacist settler-colonialism for what it is: the same fascist beast that murdered their grandparents in gas chambers.

That being said it’s entirely fair to assume any Israeli you meet is not that self-aware. Most aren’t and probably will never be.

“I hope they kill you” is not criticism.

If people want to leave that’s fine but somebody needs to put in the work necessary to dismantle the empire from within. “Just leave” is a solution for individuals; not the masses as a whole.

Some of us are too poor to leave anyhow.