I used to assume this was just common leftist sense, but it seems I was mistaken, :the-more-you-know: so I'm posting this.

Fuck nazbols, no matter what LARPing they do and no matter how much they claim to be leftists. :sus-soviet:

I don't just mean one particular self-styled professional organizer that's likely currently working on their 5th "not an alt" alt account to continue sending me manifestos about how the "strong" (conveniently, and to their sick pleasure as a spectator) will surely crush the "weak" (presumably anyone that doesn't agree with them) and that "the mentally ill" (defined as anyone they don't like) must be despised, you know, for leftism. :silver-legion:

Both online and offline I don't recognize, accept, or tolerate any form of leftism that isn't intersectional and inclusive. By extension, because of the paradox of tolerance, that also means that nazbols can fuck right off. Any sort of so-called "leftist" future they dream of, where they jerk themselves off with self-serving power fantasies that exclude what they call the weak while goosestepping in Soviet military cosplay is not a future I want for myself or anyone I care about. :nyet:

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that any organizing attempt that excludes "the mentally ill" as the aforementioned nazbol put it, or LGBTQIA+ people, or does any bigoted wrecker ideology under pretense of "removing divisiveness" :lmayo: :us-foreign-policy: can also fuck right off.

One more thing: "organize or die" becomes a destructive slogan if it is twisted into the nazbol belief that "the weak" must be ostracized for the sake of organization. Nothing of value will be organized if the organizers are grandiose hateful selfish assholes. :disgost:

Nazbols fuck off. :pit:

Edit: Removed some unintentionally ableist terms. The message is the same, and truly they weren't needed anyway.

  • blight [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    wtf is "lgbt is malthusian" even supposed to mean lol?

    • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]M
      ·
      2 years ago

      very funny phrase. its anti-malthusianism (which is good, malthusianism is often just eugenics) but mixed with the classic reactionary take that gay people are causing birth rates to fall. instead of the more reasonable conclusion that birth rates are determined by material condition. over the past 200 years birth rates have fallen bc less children die. however, birth rates are falling even further due to rising income inequality, as less people are able to support children. new deal policies enabled more people to support children, and when those policies were enacted the birth rates went back up to support a stable population growth. now the west is facing similar problems as it did in the pre/early depression era and we are seeing birth rates declining in a rate that is causing population decline

    • ShittyWallpaper [they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s been a right wing talking point for a while that queer people are hedonistic and will sacrifice the future for the present because they “can’t have kids” and therefore don’t care about the world that far into the future. I heard it all the time hate-watching Fox. Guess these “leftists” (don’t laugh!) have picked it up

      • blight [any]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        reactionaries doing projection? color me shocked

        edit: also that doesn't really relate to malthusianism

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Cishet nuclear families never neglect their kids in favor of hedonistic indulgences. Never ever, bucko! :jordan-eboy-peterson: