Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlinâs forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.
The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.
RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.
This is the kind of stuff Iâm alluding to. Maybe not strasserite, maybe nazbol-ey. Either way itâs not communist. Thereâs a significant segment of communists who have fallen rightwards through anti-idpol bollocks failing to understanding marxist intersectionality. Theyâve mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed, we simply donât have the numbers otherwise in the new cosmopolitan societies that were constructed after nation-states ended and got built into the multicultural multi-racial cosmopolitan societies they are today.
I donât think anyone wants you to keep tracks, just to acknowledge and respect it. Itâs not really something that lgbt people came up with either, it has existed prior to the modern day and Iâm willing to bet thereâs at least one isolated group out there somewhere using some unusual shit. At the end of the day itâs just a way to describe their gender when âmanâ or âwomanâ doesnât work for them. Itâs pretty harmless and seems to particularly resonate with people that arenât neurotypical so ehhhhhh itâs fine. Power to them really. Iâm glad theyâre happy. I donât have neopronouns but it doesnât affect me so you know.
I couldnât care less what this socdem lib thinks. He was losing my attention with his rape obsession for years but he completely lost my attention when he started writing for the cia outlets like Radio Free. Heâs not getting away with ignorance he knows whatâs up.
When? Is there a timeline? If theyâre dragging their feet theyâre just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was âtheyâll never ever implement thatâ. If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.
âŠwhat? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.
How do you re-educate when the masses think youâre not interested in their success? How do you get people interested in other peopleâs issues if they think youâre shafting them?
Thereâs been a massive erosion of the social systems over here roughly starting in 2000 with Schröder, New Labour type of stuff, right after Kohl pushed through his neolib privatisation agenda, victims of which were among other things the complete industry of the GDR â factories were sold for pennies to western competition who then shut stuff down. Itâs a double whammy.
Whereas back in the GDR you were not able to open your mouth without the Stasi taking notes and not able to run your mouth without the Stasi picking you off the street, if you didnât you were guaranteed to be able to get a job, fund a family, have some vacations etc. economically the situation wasnât great but you didnât need to worry about falling through any cracks (as long as you kept your mouth shut). The GDR had no Lumpenproletariat. Itâs the exact opposite right now. And people in the east are, rightly, blaming politicians for it. And now Die Linke appears to them to worry more about neopronouns than being demsocs or even socdems.
Sure you can do both, caring about one doesnât really affect caring about the other â but you also have to avoid the above perception. Most of all, if you make progress in one area but not the other you might have to tone down those successes lest the perception be that you only fight for one.
As to the numbers game: For a majority youâll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.
Not the schizo spectrum thatâs for sure, trust me, Iâd know. Autism spectrum, sure, when it comes to subjectivity theyâre hyper-normies. Now I donât mind yâall having prescriptive identities but you donât have to be muppets about it.
I mean⊠you donât have to to consider the point? Ok, hereâs what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?
Dragging their feet among other things included âwe need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that itâs even compatible with Berlinâs constitutionâ (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasnât explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course itâs constitutional, itâs probably even going to be cheap.
The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuse⊠well courts can hold them in contempt but thatâs not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldnât want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the âthis exact law shall now be in forceâ kind, not the âthe senate shall legislate on this matterâ one.
A third wave concept yes. The only issue with the liberal conception of it is that it does not include class as one of its methods of analysis. The intersection between a black trans woman creates different conditions to that of a white trans woman, but without class it creates an incomplete analysis. Class explains the difference in experience that creates for example the right wing trans bourgeoisie, who ultimately are insulated from the conditions that a poor working class trans person experiences and thus they politically lean towards protecting their class status even if it means supporting people who are hurting trans people. Marxist intersectionality simply adds in class to complete the picture and analyse groups correctly.
Itâs a balancing act. Protecting the marginalised while also connecting the dots between class issues and their issues. The issue is that people go too far one way or the other, the groups that want to never defend the marginalised groups for fear of the outcome simply become reactionaries themselves. Although a controversial figure Stalinâs quote on antisemitism leading the working class into the jungle is just as relevant to all the various minority groups today.
Because itâs not about him. Itâs about the LGBTQ+ people. This attitude reeks of the same âwhy canât you just like be a little less this and a little more thatâ, which is something the various phobes and bigots (whether they realise it or not) have consistently levelled at lgbt people over the decades. They decide what they are, and how they like to present their community and identity. Zizek doing this shit just demonstrates he fundamentally doesnât give a fuck about us, and that he would only like to make these groups politically more convenient for himself. On top of that there is the other issue, that lgbt people have for decades now had to exist in a âfuck you, we exist in public and thatâs your problem not oursâ attitude to public life and existence, attempts to make them adjust how they exist in public life are always going to be viewed as attacks when that is the cultural background of the community defending itself and its right to exist. Thatâs what âprideâ is, a big fuck you we exist weâre proud of that and visible. Having people come in from outside and try to tell them to do it differently is⊠Not good. Itâs out of touch. It shows heâs never really engaged properly in order to understand this group, how it got to where it is, why it defends itself so aggressively, etc etc.
I think theyâll take the election hit over implementing it. But weâll see.
What happens after that? Who has the teeth to force its implementation? Anyone at all? Or can the courts do nothing more than âwe find you in contemptâ ? What actual repercussions does that have other than electoral? The bougies can play the electoral game and come out on top forever if there is no real way to force any of these parties into implementing it when they donât want to do it. They could fuck around for years, and then throw it out in some crisis saying âitâs no longer viable because [excuse here]â. âItâs been too longâ, âwe have war now the conditions are differentâ, âthereâs a famine from climate change occurring nowâ, âwe have a water crisisâ, âthe war with chinaâ. I can think of so many things that are just around the corner that could be used as excuses. As long as the ââpunishmentââ is only in the ballot box they could feasibly fuck around forever, if no alternative mechanisms of forcing it through exist.
See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say âfuck you we existâ for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, thatâs perfectly warranted theyâre autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All youâre doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.
Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in âIt is me who is perceiving thisâ, i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if thereâs others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what youâre doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.
(It then shouldnât come as a surprise that thereâs no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. Itâd be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)
Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why Iâm e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people whoâd rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.
The whole thing would be easier if language wouldnât force us to choose a gender. Thereâs plenty of language in which thatâs worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you canât talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but thereâs also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which itâs possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and thatâs the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyoneâs a they? (which is what I actually meant the âeveryoneâs a +â thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).
As to visibility: Thatâs what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that theyâre not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say âyep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless itâs nothing out of the ordinaryâ.
If the government ignores courts then weâre in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldnât be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:
and thatâs what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, thereâs already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say âtold you soâ so thereâs that and it might very well play into parole hearings.
The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when theyâre of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it â thatâs a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue âthis half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the lawâ type of orders. But thatâs because theyâre balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, theyâre, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isnât an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldnât be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They donât have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.
I mean itâs not that Mao wasnât ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.