You are right, I was wrong, I should have said "all black Americans".
You don't have to deal with internalized racism because you could put out a good dunk instead.
I haven't met Kamala Harris. If you use one establishment Democrat to inform your opinion of all black people, you're probably going to end up inexcusably ignorant.
The cure is ignorance is fostering friendships with people on a personal level, listen with the intent of understanding their struggle. Leftist spaces are not doing a good enough job of giving black voices a space and y'all are using Kamala as your excuse to keep it that way.
That's really weird, do you live in a super conservative area that happens to have black and indigenous people that talk foreign policy to people very quickly after meeting them?
I live in a very diverse, working class, mostly leftist area, all of my friendship circles are extremely critical of America's foreign policy.
Why is your local community so pro-Imperialism?
I have not met a single BIPOC individual who supports America's foreign policy, have you?
How did BIPOC do it to themselves when they were either here first and had their land stolen from them, or were forcibly shipped over against their will, and had little to no rights until very recently, and still have generations of oppression to overcome.
https://apnews.com/article/text-messages-slavery-racism-black-americans-fbi-708973521d2974bec7514b8622877290
It's already a less safe place for BIPOC in the US. I get it, status quo sucks, but it can and will get worse.
Yo this is pretty insanely racist. Most black men don't have crypto investments, they just want to be allowed to walk and breathe without a trigger happy pig using them for target practice.
Fascists have for a while now been appropriating leftist talking points and aesthetics, which at best muddies the water, and at worst gives fascists outright control.
China should strangle the US's development uno reverso
Reddit was already priming for that before the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats won and still blamed Gaza protestors for the turnout not being higher.
Outstanding post, this part spoke to me the loudest:
Female separatism, by placing such a big emphasis on distancing the feminist movement from men, already does this. It renounces the social construction of sex by assuming that men are innately evil to a point in which that male privilege, in the context of female separatism, is trying to be handled on an individual level rather than a systemic level at this point.
I can't help but feel right now that cis men are innately evil, because if they aren't, then why do they act like that??
From a higher reasoning perspective of course this isn't true, it stems from systemic issues and systemic issues require systemic solutions.
Getting to understand the root of my frustration though I'm working on avoiding falling into traps of racism and transphobia. It's still shocking how some anger and frustration can quickly pipeline to right wing ways of thinking.
Thank you for your service o7 I'm watching this first thing after work.
Do you have any recommended resources for educating myself and others on this? 4B ideas as picking up fast in my irl circles and I want to be ready.
deleted by creator
It's WAY worse than that, the implication is that "political correctness" is not actually correct, and the correct/natural/default position is to be racist/white supremacist/homophobic/transphobic, and these have to be disguised purely for the purpose of being politically savory.
So if you aren't being racist you aren't being correct - you're being politically correct.
Yes it's absolutely ghoulish.
I said it months ago here: establishment Dems love to lose. They still have all their power and privilege, none of the responsibilities, the GOP can make everything even more cushy and privileged for establishment like them, and they get to complain and blame everything on the GOP even while reaping the benefits.
Literally there are no downsides to establishment Dems losing to the GOP.
I found yours, yours is just like gibberish.
You are here presenting the situation as if it was a sudden development, rather than a known risk from the start. You are also presenting it as a definite certainty. Neither of these presentations are correct.
No, risk is a spectrum, like everything. The level of risk changes based on the situation. Jack found it to be an acceptable level of risk, the situation changed, the risk got higher, and it was no longer acceptable to him.
I was presenting a hypothetical situation where risk was the absolute maximum because I want people to use their heads and think about it, and maybe break out of the snearing circlejerk bubble for a second.
Like the anonymous Jane Doe lawsuit from the woman who wasremovedd by Trump when she was 14? She dropped it after numerous threats from Trump and her supporters and I don't blame her at all. I don't expect Jane Doe to put her and her families life on the line either.
This is the way.
Like I'm talking about a burning house in the US, and "but there are burning houses in other countries too you USAmerican centrist".
Wonderful, thank you for your input, none of the burning houses were helped from this.