jools posted:
still doesnt match dead kens "hyperbolic antizionism"

thats true

babyhueypnewton posted:
White people should prostrate themselves and men should act in non-oppressive ways, etc. That what confuses me, Marx never expects the bourgeoisie to act ashamed or give up their privilege. In fact, this is the sickness of our time as Zizek rightly points out when he condemns charity and liberal communists. Why are we expecting men to give up their privilege? Why are we expecting white people to sympathize with the group whos oppression defines them? Are women, blacks, gays, etc so weak that they have to rely on their oppressors for support rather than seeing the enemy? Sure it's cathartic to humiliate and browbeat those weak liberal white, straight, men who want to be part of the movement but what does it accomplish when the power structure laughs at the infighting of the oppressed and their "allies"?

how do you define men giving up their privilege? Im actually curious.
w/r/t women they are weak in some cases, most notably physically in comparison to men. is demanding men not rape, beat or buy women a manifestation of privilege theory? Does that fall under the category of giving up privilege? or is the question irrelevant because it approaches the problem individual basis as opposed to the systemic

futurewidow posted:
like I'm with you that the oppressed are perfectly capable of drawing on strength to overthrow their oppressors it'd just be nice you know if in the meantime so-called enlightened men (aka our comrades) didn't rape us /exchange money for our bodies

men don't exist without "femininity". white people are defined by "blackness". it's a dialectic, and men in the feminist movement (and white people in the black power movement) are a reflection of two things: either the movement is not radical enough to threaten the actual foundations of systematic privilege or those men are too weak to benefit from their own privilege. I think you see both in the WDDP situation. Somehow this idea, which was obvious at one time in the black power movement and the feminist movement has been lost. This is probably controversial but I think Malcolm X had outlived his usefulness once he left the NOI and had become a revisionist.

babyhueypnewton posted:

futurewidow posted:
like I'm with you that the oppressed are perfectly capable of drawing on strength to overthrow their oppressors it'd just be nice you know if in the meantime so-called enlightened men (aka our comrades) didn't rape us /exchange money for our bodies

men don't exist without "femininity". white people are defined by "blackness". it's a dialectic, and men in the feminist movement (and white people in the black power movement) are a reflection of two things: either the movement is not radical enough to threaten the actual foundations of systematic privilege or those men are too weak to benefit from their own privilege. I think you see both in the WDDP situation. Somehow this idea, which was obvious at one time in the black power movement and the feminist movement has been lost. This is probably controversial but I think Malcolm X had outlived his usefulness once he left the NOI and had become a revisionist.

lmao how stupid are you

This is probably controversial but I think Malcolm X had outlived his usefulness once he left the NOI and had become a revisionist.

And you're the one who is adamant about building a movement that doesn't throw people of colour under the bus?

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

What KFC cricket ad?

AmericanNazbro posted:

jesus fucking chrrrrrrist jools showed me the picture of a bunch of white people standing around laughing at the cake which was bad enough but seeing the video its like waht the fuck

mistersix posted:
yeah its pretty telling that a room full of people all thought this was a great photo op: