Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.
The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.
RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.
Strasserite fuck no, she’s a card-carrying communist, always has been, joined Die Linke when it was still the SED. Masters in… philosophy, I guess, on Marx’ interpretation of Hegel. PhD in macroeconomics. If the GDR hadn’t fallen she’d probably sit in the central committee. Ceased to do Stalin apologia in the 90s, still does Russia apologia and has rather unhelpful Ukraine takes (“let’s just all stop shooting”, “ceasefire now”). Against a vaccine mandate but that only ever has been debated about in the abstract, anyway, definitely not a denier. Where she really breaks with the rest of Die Linke is the stuff I alluded to (with a bit of populist spin as she’d then also be bound to do it in her new party): The main beef she has with her party is over, as she puts it, Die Linke forgetting to advocate for the broad masses and instead fixating on (however justified) minority issues. See that as you will it’s certainly the exact perception people in the east have of the party.
I’m drawing the line at having a neutral pronoun anyone can use. I don’t mind one bit if some enthusiasts want to go all-out and have as many pronouns in a group as there are people but don’t expect me to keep track of all that I can barely remember names (faces and characters and histories, no issue, but names just don’t stick). It’s bad enough that Indo-European languages have gender-afflicted noun classes it’s a better idea to just get rid of them (or at least class distinctions between different groups of people1) than to explode the number of classes.
Or, to put it with Zizek: Why LGBTQ+ can’t we just all be +.
Oh no it went through. Berlin’s government is currently dragging its feet (CDU/SPD, both opposed the referendum) but they have to implement it.
1 Pun not intended but I’ll take it
This is the kind of stuff I’m alluding to. Maybe not strasserite, maybe nazbol-ey. Either way it’s not communist. There’s a significant segment of communists who have fallen rightwards through anti-idpol bollocks failing to understanding marxist intersectionality. They’ve mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed, we simply don’t have the numbers otherwise in the new cosmopolitan societies that were constructed after nation-states ended and got built into the multicultural multi-racial cosmopolitan societies they are today.
I don’t think anyone wants you to keep tracks, just to acknowledge and respect it. It’s not really something that lgbt people came up with either, it has existed prior to the modern day and I’m willing to bet there’s at least one isolated group out there somewhere using some unusual shit. At the end of the day it’s just a way to describe their gender when “man” or “woman” doesn’t work for them. It’s pretty harmless and seems to particularly resonate with people that aren’t neurotypical so ehhhhhh it’s fine. Power to them really. I’m glad they’re happy. I don’t have neopronouns but it doesn’t affect me so you know.
I couldn’t care less what this socdem lib thinks. He was losing my attention with his rape obsession for years but he completely lost my attention when he started writing for the cia outlets like Radio Free. He’s not getting away with ignorance he knows what’s up.
When? Is there a timeline? If they’re dragging their feet they’re just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was “they’ll never ever implement that”. If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.
…what? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.
How do you re-educate when the masses think you’re not interested in their success? How do you get people interested in other people’s issues if they think you’re shafting them?
There’s been a massive erosion of the social systems over here roughly starting in 2000 with Schröder, New Labour type of stuff, right after Kohl pushed through his neolib privatisation agenda, victims of which were among other things the complete industry of the GDR – factories were sold for pennies to western competition who then shut stuff down. It’s a double whammy.
Whereas back in the GDR you were not able to open your mouth without the Stasi taking notes and not able to run your mouth without the Stasi picking you off the street, if you didn’t you were guaranteed to be able to get a job, fund a family, have some vacations etc. economically the situation wasn’t great but you didn’t need to worry about falling through any cracks (as long as you kept your mouth shut). The GDR had no Lumpenproletariat. It’s the exact opposite right now. And people in the east are, rightly, blaming politicians for it. And now Die Linke appears to them to worry more about neopronouns than being demsocs or even socdems.
Sure you can do both, caring about one doesn’t really affect caring about the other – but you also have to avoid the above perception. Most of all, if you make progress in one area but not the other you might have to tone down those successes lest the perception be that you only fight for one.
As to the numbers game: For a majority you’ll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.
Not the schizo spectrum that’s for sure, trust me, I’d know. Autism spectrum, sure, when it comes to subjectivity they’re hyper-normies. Now I don’t mind y’all having prescriptive identities but you don’t have to be muppets about it.
I mean… you don’t have to to consider the point? Ok, here’s what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?
Dragging their feet among other things included “we need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that it’s even compatible with Berlin’s constitution” (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasn’t explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course it’s constitutional, it’s probably even going to be cheap.
The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuse… well courts can hold them in contempt but that’s not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldn’t want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the “this exact law shall now be in force” kind, not the “the senate shall legislate on this matter” one.
A third wave concept yes. The only issue with the liberal conception of it is that it does not include class as one of its methods of analysis. The intersection between a black trans woman creates different conditions to that of a white trans woman, but without class it creates an incomplete analysis. Class explains the difference in experience that creates for example the right wing trans bourgeoisie, who ultimately are insulated from the conditions that a poor working class trans person experiences and thus they politically lean towards protecting their class status even if it means supporting people who are hurting trans people. Marxist intersectionality simply adds in class to complete the picture and analyse groups correctly.
It’s a balancing act. Protecting the marginalised while also connecting the dots between class issues and their issues. The issue is that people go too far one way or the other, the groups that want to never defend the marginalised groups for fear of the outcome simply become reactionaries themselves. Although a controversial figure Stalin’s quote on antisemitism leading the working class into the jungle is just as relevant to all the various minority groups today.
Because it’s not about him. It’s about the LGBTQ+ people. This attitude reeks of the same “why can’t you just like be a little less this and a little more that”, which is something the various phobes and bigots (whether they realise it or not) have consistently levelled at lgbt people over the decades. They decide what they are, and how they like to present their community and identity. Zizek doing this shit just demonstrates he fundamentally doesn’t give a fuck about us, and that he would only like to make these groups politically more convenient for himself. On top of that there is the other issue, that lgbt people have for decades now had to exist in a “fuck you, we exist in public and that’s your problem not ours” attitude to public life and existence, attempts to make them adjust how they exist in public life are always going to be viewed as attacks when that is the cultural background of the community defending itself and its right to exist. That’s what “pride” is, a big fuck you we exist we’re proud of that and visible. Having people come in from outside and try to tell them to do it differently is… Not good. It’s out of touch. It shows he’s never really engaged properly in order to understand this group, how it got to where it is, why it defends itself so aggressively, etc etc.
I think they’ll take the election hit over implementing it. But we’ll see.
What happens after that? Who has the teeth to force its implementation? Anyone at all? Or can the courts do nothing more than “we find you in contempt” ? What actual repercussions does that have other than electoral? The bougies can play the electoral game and come out on top forever if there is no real way to force any of these parties into implementing it when they don’t want to do it. They could fuck around for years, and then throw it out in some crisis saying “it’s no longer viable because [excuse here]”. “It’s been too long”, “we have war now the conditions are different”, “there’s a famine from climate change occurring now”, “we have a water crisis”, “the war with china”. I can think of so many things that are just around the corner that could be used as excuses. As long as the ““punishment”” is only in the ballot box they could feasibly fuck around forever, if no alternative mechanisms of forcing it through exist.
See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say “fuck you we exist” for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, that’s perfectly warranted they’re autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All you’re doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.
Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in “It is me who is perceiving this”, i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if there’s others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what you’re doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.
(It then shouldn’t come as a surprise that there’s no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. It’d be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)
Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why I’m e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people who’d rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.
The whole thing would be easier if language wouldn’t force us to choose a gender. There’s plenty of language in which that’s worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you can’t talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but there’s also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which it’s possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and that’s the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyone’s a they? (which is what I actually meant the “everyone’s a +” thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).
As to visibility: That’s what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that they’re not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say “yep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless it’s nothing out of the ordinary”.
If the government ignores courts then we’re in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldn’t be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:
and that’s what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, there’s already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say “told you so” so there’s that and it might very well play into parole hearings.
The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when they’re of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it – that’s a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue “this half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the law” type of orders. But that’s because they’re balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, they’re, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isn’t an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldn’t be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They don’t have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.
I mean it’s not that Mao wasn’t ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.