Just FYI, .world users can’t see replies from lemmygrad accounts.

I think it’s well beyond abelist wannabe at this point. This is going into eugenics territory.

If I submitted something of this quality as a term paper at my university I would fail the course. This was incredibly embarrassing to read and wouldn’t make it past one review session with a teaching assistant.

Yes, like I said, I wouldn’t blame them. What I mean is that, regardless of blame or finger pointing, the people caught in the crossfire are still affected by it.

This isn’t talking about priorities, blame, or what issues should take focus on a systemic level. It’s more on an individual level where I sympathise with the negative experiences they had and the feelings of social isolation that they go through.

At the risk of making a bad analogy, we could say that if someone stubs and injures their toe on a living room table, we should be able to sympathise with what they’re going through without assigning blame to an inanimate object. The concern is not to find someone or something to assign blame to, but to help out the injured person and give them some support.

That doesn’t mean that we would go on a country-wide campaign about the dangers of tables.

I think a large reason why these conversations keep happening is that many people fail to grasp this point, and it results in people talking past each other.

Many take “misandry is not real” to mean that no prejudice or situation negatively affects a man for being a man. This is then contrasted with personal experiences of toxic masculinity, negative social experiences mostly unique to men, and experiences of feeling excluded from some circles due to being a man, etc.

Some men would then think to themselves “how could you say that ‘misandry’ is not real when I had all these negative personal experiences?”, unaware that these experiences don’t translate to a systemic form of oppression.

You may as well be talking about ‘heterophobia’, ‘cisphobia’, or ‘anti-white racism’ because that would make just as much sense. You can’t oppress the oppressor class.

That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.

Though I would say that I’m still somewhat sympathetic to people expressing points like OP because if you’re not aware of this, then you feel like all your personal experiences and hardships are invalidated. Especially given that most of the time when people try to explain this point, it’s done pretty aggressively and antagonistically. Can’t say I would blame people airing their grievances against an oppressing force, but I can see how some people would feel victimised by it.

I kept it short because I considered it obvious

Classic.

Surprisingly common.

This is a good moment to point out that an open source alternative to Figma, Penpot, exists and has come a very long way and is almost feature-complete with Figma. It also has its own unique features.

I’ve personally been using it for a long time for various use-cases and I’m more than happy with it.

I think this thread has hit a Shitty Ask Lemmy record

I’m not disagreeing, I meant for The Principles of Communism specifically because it’s such a short read. If most people read it just once it would save so much time that’s usually spent clearing up misconceptions in conversations.

I wish most people would start with that instead of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (or “The Communist Manifesto” as most people call it). It gets through most of the misconceptions in a much faster and simpler way. I like that you have it listed first in your reading list.

At the very least it would get people to start grasping what communism even is, instead of them creating vibes-based strawmen in their heads that they argue against.

The struggle is real. Although in my experience I would say that doing vegan activism generally is “activism on easy mode” compared to communist agitation.

If you start the conversations off the right way and with context that gets people to think about animals, whether it’s a video, VR experience, information about the animal agriculture industry, etc. it’s a very straightforward A --> B for a lot of people. If you think animal abuse is bad --> don’t support animal abuse.

Of course there is the background of misconceptions about everything from health and nutrition, sustainability concerns (somehow), believing it’s more expensive to be vegan, thinking there must be a “right” way to murder an animal, etc. But in my outreach conversations I make a conscious effort to not argue with people.

The main goal is to get them to express their empathy for animals and confront the contradictions in their actions and values. Once they understand this, understand what veganism actually is and that it’s not a diet, it becomes much easier for them to address the information part as they’re already motivated by the “why”. From that point I don’t spoonfeed them information or argue with them, I just give them resources that they can look into on their own time.

Maybe for me it’s also a difference in experience because I haven’t had that many conversations regarding communism with many people. I feel that it’s impossibly hard. For veganism, all I needed to realise was this one contradiction regarding animal exploitation and abuse, and just inform myself mostly about diet stuff. For communism, it’s a process that took years, a lot of reading, a lot of correcting misconceptions about communism itself, a lot of history, a very large change in worldview, even though I would’ve described myself as an “anti-capitalist” for a long time before that.

I think I read this sentiment before somewhere. May I ask why?

When are we getting the ProleWiki podcast where twice a month @CriticalResist8 along with different contributors and editors talk about everything ProleWiki from updates, news, challenges, the “On this day…” event etc. with a section at the end of each episode highlighting some of the goofiest edit attempts in ProleWiki history?

Of course, there would also be a Q&A section to plug the Patreon/Liberapay, as only patrons would be able to submit questions. They’ll also get exclusive access to a compilation of bloopers from the last 2 episodes every month.

And it goes without saying that once a month there will be a special episode with a section where @CriticalResist8 invites esteemed guests from Lemmygrad to discuss the featured article and essay on the ProleWiki homepage from that day.

_{this comment is a joke}

My daughter needs oil for her hair

What? Is this a mistranslation or do they sign official statements like forum posts from 2009?

Air strikes should only be considered as a last resort. However, based on their comments and behavior, no positive outcomes can be expected. We made the decision to preemptively strike Iran for these reasons.

If you’re going to be doubting someone’s experience, assuming intentions, and implying that conversations surrounding oppression and disagreements over technological implementations are comparable in this sense, then there is no room for conversation here.

I’m not trying to portray myself as a paragon of civility, nor am I above making bad judgements. I do concede that that comment I made was poorly worded and needlessly antagonistic. I will not try to defend that.

I am not trying to debate or argue. I don’t want any winners or losers or gotchas or whatever people seek from that. My whole aim was to express that there is frustration that is not unwarranted in these topics, and whether it’s deemed to be fair or not, the initial invitation to a conversation is important in setting the ground for the conversations that follow.

You seem insistent to believe that I am attempting to troll, be snarky or engage in sealioning, when I am trying my best to genuinely engage. I did not, and do not claim that you had any bad intentions. If you follow through my comments again, you will see what my motivation was clearly. I simply started commenting to point out that, even if it is unintentional, and I do believe you when you say that it was, that given the context and history of these posts in this instance, this topic should be discussed with more grace. Nothing more, nothing less.