ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]
Yeah agreed I don’t think we need the comm
These takes are entirely understandable for DroneRights to have, given how it views itself as a non-person.
I feel like if anything this esoteric identy was weaponised against those members of our community that were constantly fighting to defend. Also, while I’m all for treating non-persons with kindness and care the fact is animals can’t weaponize their non-personhood the way that this account did.
I just go back to what I thought before, just because it sees itself as a non-person it doesn’t give it the right to be transphobic. Neurodiversity isn’t an excuse to engage in erasure. We can’t carve out some exception that our ND comrades can erase trans people because they’re ND.
And I still don’t see why there’s such defense of an account that engaged in blatant transphobia. Straight up, if you use pronouns like the account did (AND INSIST UPON THEM TO OTHERS), then the turn to
cw transphobic material
Ackshuwally they/them isn’t an identity and doesn’t exist
Doesn’t make sense. Even if you are neurodiverse, how the fuck isn’t this some massive cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy. Again, ND isn’t an excuse to engage in this kind of behavior, all the more that the account frequently noted its own pronouns.
I mean is it too much to ask that a ND person respect the existence of our trans comrades?
Hahaha blahaj sucks so hard.
I remember when we defederated them first because of the ableist apologia they did.
PS I love all our trans comrades
That’s a from me.
Also, I have a family member with an intellectual disability, so it sticks in my craw when someone tries to defend it as innocent. It’s fine if someone throws it out and then gets corrected (think of the Chapos, they quit using it after all), since for a long time it was “acceptable.” But to try and defend yourself after correction…
The best part is that I know for sure a few blahaj members have opened accounts here.
Awoo has already noted some important refutations, but I want to unpack something here.
Landlords and Bourgeoisie are class identities. Importantly, these are not the result of things outside of your control (i.e. ethnic origin, nation, etc.) but instead determined by actions in the world. While one can’t say that one is subhuman because of where they are from, isn’t being a landlord (and thus extracting rent from people for shelter) a behavior? A series of actions and choices? And can’t we characterize a behavior or action as evil/immoral? Basically, when I say “landlords are evil and deserve to die or surrender their assets to the collective” what I’m describing is a particular set of actions. It’s not different from having an opinion on if murderers deserve capital punishment.
Btw, I believe in rehabilitative punishment. However, if we’re going to talk about people who deserve to die, I think capitalists and landlords are up there. A person who kills someone else – either due to mental illness or a crime of passion – is far less damaging to our social fabric than people who, through institutions, contribute to the death of our world and the immiseration of many. For instance, how many unhoused people have gone hungry/died because of the executives at Starbucks who decide that food thrown out should be covered in coffee grounds to be inedible? We don’t have the numbers, but shouldn’t we call this behavior subhuman/evil? I think you’re missing the distinction between saying the executive who designed that policy deserves the gulag – a specific inhuman action that deserves a specific response – and calling all insert ethnicity/nationality here subhuman.