zsh, ksh, bash, and obviously sh
mathemachristian[he] @ mathemachristian @lemm.ee Posts 3Comments 603Joined 2 yr. ago
mathemachristian[he] @ mathemachristian @lemm.ee
Posts
3
Comments
603
Joined
2 yr. ago
You keep projecting what you think I'm advocating for when all I've so far revealed is that I'm advocating for clear language that doesn't flatten reality but acknowledges the different struggles people face, including racist ones. Why do you think that would stop short of a person born into poverty or to one born to parents who didnt have the privilege of a higher education and therefore can't pass on what they haven't learned? You keep talking about this in ways that reveal that for you other peoples struggle is an abstract thought exercise, which is why I advised caution when telling others how to safeguard against or combat racism.
Hamburg is a police state it’s very easy to get harassed by police there. Remember when they declared pretty much all of Altona a “danger zone”? That wasn’t about immigrants it was about leftists, they kicked off the whole thing by claiming, falsely, that a police station was attacked by “people wearing St. Pauli scarfs”.
Believe me I know.
Yes, please do tell me whether Hamburg cops make a distinction between someone looking like they visit the barber thrice a day vs. a punk.
Obviously they do.
By considering your groups’ issues, be that Turks or immigrants in general, to be oh so special, unknown to everyone else, you’re othering yourself.
No, I was othered unprompted. By Turks. They aren't "my group" any less than the "east germans". A comrade is a comrade, a racist isn't.
Is there surname discrimination when looking for a flat? Yes. Is there discrimination against Kevins? Also yes because in reality it’s about socio-economic status and both foreign last name or “low-class” native first name are proxies for low socio-economic standing.
Not entirely. The prejudice Kevin faces is different from the one Jihad faces. That doesn't make Kevins struggle less real. I don't understand why you keep thinking I want to diminish someones struggle when I've repeatedly called for language that doesn't hide injustices. I've helped both a "Kevin" and a "Jihad" try to find apartments while needing rent relief. One was presumed to have snuck into this country and probably dangerous and the other was "just" presumed to be lazy. It both sucks, but one of them had it harder. And we aren't going to be addressing any of it if we can't talk about how or why the systems is the way it is.
The solution is not to preach “oh liberal landlord, you’re being so racist, please ignore your concerns about your tenant’s incomes” as that ignores their systemic financial interest in discriminating against people with low wages, it will never work, the solution is social housing, which, I already mentioned, we’re lacking at least one million units of: That kind of discrimination can only exist in an environment where there’s too few flats on the market, if landlords actually needed to search for tenants then they’d be willing to interview everyone – and then discriminate by actual, not assumed, socio-economic status. It’s not just immigrants that don’t fit into the normative lens of the usual rightoid suspects. Remember who were the first the Nazis put into camps?
Complete projection. I don't know where this is coming from.
Just because you don’t want to deport or do worse to people doesn’t mean that the in-outgroup psychology isn’t the same, and is breeding ground for worse. Yes, that realisation can hurt. It’s also vital. Swimming against the stream is insufficient, you have to get out of the fucking river, take a breather, have a Mojito, learn to walk
More evidence that this is just a thought exercise for you. The grey wolves kill people like me. The fact that you persist after I told you it was hurtful because you are so sure in your (wrong) assumption for why that might be tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Which makes it less hurtful, so at least there's that, but it's a bad sign about how I think of you because I would like to think of you as a comrade. So why persist in something I told you to be hurtful?
and then throw live vests at the swimmers, first and foremost those that cling to other swimmers.
How about instead to those closest to drowning? What do you propose we do about the people that aren't close to drowning but steal the vests from under the people that are?
Ah, there we have it. “AfD voters and therefore the east are all Nazis”. Especially Kevin, of course, why else could Kevin be angry as you’re denying that discrimination against him can exist. No, they didn’t suddenly become (more) racist. No, demagogues didn’t suddenly learn radically new tricks that made them magnitudes more effective: The underlying conditions, the seeds of betrayal and anger, that they exploit became more and more wide-spread, the precariat grew and grew while conditions and pressures got worse and worse.
Even more evidence that this is just a thought exercise for you, when I'm talking about "the racists" I'm not talking about some abstract demographic, I am thinking of real people. I can visualize their faces. I wasn't talking about "AfD voters and therefore the east" and the fact that your first response always seems to be "but won't you think of the people voting AfD" is making me increasingly wary of you. I was working under the assumption that this "bridging the divide" thing is a pet project that you're overly invested in but I'm increasingly running low on good faith to offer you especially since I don't seem to get any in return.
To be sure I'm not against "bridging the divide" or dismissive of people in the east, especially since they got capitalism working against them double-time when compared to the west. I don't think of them as AfD voting nazis. But you have to understand that for me to call someone who did vote AfD a comrade, they have to earn my trust first because they probably need to unlearn some racist shit or at the very least learn materialist thinking.
I don’t think I ever said that as I disagree with it: Welfare recipients in general, the whole precariat, is getting squeezed. The whole thing started in the 90s when the federal republic lost its (nominal only, but still) socialist rival to the east. Noone is ever promising more welfare for anyone, it’s always “those lazy buggers simply don’t want to work”. “Poverty is a choice” etc, etc. Social darwinism.
Right, immigrants was used as a stand-in for really anyone requiring welfare. It's just that the media focus really is on the immigrants at the moment. But again I am well aware that there are other marginalised groups.
Add “organic potato but parents live off Hartz IV” to the list of people without equal opportunities and we could have a seed of agreement. “Bildungsferne Schichten”, as the euphemism goes.
They were never off the list. I do not understand why you think they would be.
A Turk with Abitur much less degree is rare not because they’re Turks but because their parents didn’t study.
That's an untrue simplification. Turkish people are racistly discriminated against even in school. If their parents didn't have a good education obviously getting Abitur will be even harder, same as for any other person, but they might face additional hurdles or just different hurdles than others. Same for disabled people, they will face bigger hurdles than their able-bodied friends with the same background. Same for girls getting into STEM, their gender probably will cause the barrier for them to be even higher than for boys with a similar non-academic household. Naming the reasons for why some people face different obstacles isn't idpol, it's materialist.
Be a good leftist and spend some of your solidarity budget on Kevin. It’s going to pay off a thousandfold because it will create conditions under which addressing things like racial profiling doesn’t sound like “oh great another way for them to ignore us”.
Kevin always had my solidarity, but I expect to have his. It's not unconditional. Also it doesn't need to be budgeted? What a weird way of thinking about it.
Democracies have capacity limits, when you fix shit that concerns a huge number of people suddenly those have time and nerve for solidarity,
True, which is why I'm advocating for precise language to name concerns so that we get to those with the most first. Because time and again once the majority got theirs the minority was left behind. The people whose only motivation is that their concerns get addressed will lose any motivation once they are. Tit for tat is not solidarity and will never achieve justice.
Now I don’t know about how things are where you are but over here it’s more suspicious to be Catholic or, heaven help, Freikirchlich, than Muslim. Turks give other Turks shit for being Bavarian.
So the fact that some people make Kumpir-jokes (arguably actually idpol) is supposed to assure me that there is no anti-turkish racism? I have family members whose business gets harassed by cops for no other reason than them being turkish. Their business is in a very non-white neighborhood in the supposedly oh so leftist Hamburg. They aren't as integrated as italians who by the way I've also witnessed being "other"ed on one occasion so clearly even they aren't on-par with the non-immigrants in Germany.
Yes, going ahead in such a situation and saying “This is all about people’s ancestors being from Turkey” is precisely idpol
Well I'm not. I'm talking about the cops double and triple checking turkish businesses in an unnecessarily disruptive manner for no reason other than them being suspicous of their turkishness. Don't tell me that it isn't "all about people's ancestors being from Turkey" because it most assuredly is.
makes you kin to the Grey Wolves
That was really hurtful for reasons you couldn't know. But please be mindful of bad-jacketing even by association.
It always takes a while for a population to settle but Turks are now at a status Italians achieved quite quickly (do those even register on your “non-white” radar?)
I can only assume that you wrote this (and the rest of that paragraph) before I edited in my last paragraph in the comment above yours, so I'll reiterate it here. I'm not the one ascribing white/non-white to people, I'm talking about groups of people that are racistly viewed as such and the effects such a view on people has. So e.g. an italian who might be too brown and gets clocked as "non-white" might experience discrimination in which case I would be talking about "discrimination against a non-white person". People that are regularly discriminated against in such a way might group together to lobby for equal rights, create safe spaces where they can just be and form a community centered around the racist prescription they were given. Such groups, spaces and communities will then get under attack by the racists and therefore need special protection. That isn't idpol. It is a vital strategy to form solidarity among people that experience discrimination others don't. Something others cannot relate to, can't see the full extent of damage caused and therefore can't be as helpful in solving. It's not about "segregating hairstyles", it's about listening to oppressed people and what they say they need in order to protect themselves and their community. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, but I am saying people that don't experience what they do, should be real careful about judging whether they are.
because the material conditions aren’t buried under layers and layers of idpol-generated enmity
You got this the wrong way around. The racist enmity is what caused people to band together. Liberals then tried to "target audiences" by how they were grouped together creating idpol. By a similar logic I could claim that rainbow capitalism or pinkwashing is caused by the LGBTQ community coming together, that's absurd and frankly puts the blame for racism on the people fighting it. The people importing idpol are the german right-wingers repeating the absurd lies of the US right-wing, not people that speak against racist discrimination.
Then talk about the education system, why the son of a baker generally doesn’t become an engineer even though he has the talent and smarts. Next to capital ownership education is the primary, because inherited, class divide in Germany.
You don't know what I talk about in regards to german politics because you're replying to me in a thread kicked off about a comment I made about US politics! But I'll be damned if I shut up about the racist barriers of entry non-white germans face in higher education.
You're right about the AfD voters not being labor aristocracy, that was imprecise (therefore wrong). What I meant was the implied promise of more welfare once the immigrants stop "leeching" off the welfare systems. This promise is, as you rightfully pointed out, something every major party in Germany promises in some phrasing or another and the precariat have noticed that the established parties don't live up to it. I think that is how the BSW is going to make a dent, it hasn't disappointed yet.
But at the heart of this "X people need to go because they only leech off the welfare systems" is the lie that everyone has the same opportunities and possibilities regardless of origin (born here, refugee, turk, white, just pick a job and get busy) and the reality that people which can be grouped together by some trait depend more on welfare then necessarily implies that these people are innately more dependent on it. Coupled with the lie that there isn't enough wealth for everyone and you have an effective way to get the precariat in arms against them. Maybe calling them a precariat aristocracy would be better but where the labor aristocrats already get payed more, they simply get promised more so I don't know (precariat to-be-aristocracy? I'm just making shit up now). This isn't the only strategy liberals use to agitate obviously but it's a major and effective one.
And it must be countered by clear language that doesn't flatten the labor class into a single homogenous entity in a way Bobby Reichs tweet does. This goes for the US and for us.
I grew up in Turkey. I have seen plenty of Turks, also Kurds also Arabs. Which is how I also know what it's like to be a religious minority, what it's like to have the police hound you for it or just the weirdness of sticking out in a crowd like a sore thumb. Which is how experienced the importance of the community of people like oneself, a concept that often gets misrepresented in the so-called "identity politics" which therefore should be opposed, but that doesn't make it less real. And if you think there is not a similar acceptable/non-acceptable split along ethnic, cultural and religious lines in our society then your dreaming. I completely ignored your question because this is not idpol. This is about acknowledging the material effects ones cultural, ethnic or religious background and appearance has on ones life, to which the history of how we, and for the US how they, got here is vitally important.
I don't know why you'd think I would say that the east has "suddenly" turned nazi. That just came out of nowhere and I have no idea how the rest of your comment relates to anything we're talking about. I guess you think I'm just doing "performative" leftism to ingratiate myself to minorities or something. I don't know. I'm not, I just care about clear language that doesn't hide the privilege some laborers have over others, because that's how you fight the labor-aristocracy of the AfD voters. The rationale that "if we all have the same opportunities, then how come the people with a non-standard german background are so much more dependent on social welfare" needs to be rooted out at the beginning of "we all have the same opportunities" because we don't.
Edit: Sorry I'm gonna add a bigger paragraph after posting about the whole white/non-white thing. I use these racist terms to describe how our racist society groups people according to their appearance and not as a scientific term where you can decide if someone is white or not, the fact that this is not possible is the precise contradiction that racists use to garner support from people they will oppress later. Whether someone is white or not, or "really" German or not, is very fluid and dependent on the situation. An ethnically Turkish person can pass as white and not be pulled from traffic into a routine check but they would probably be treated as non-white if during a traffic stop the cop learned their name. The way people treat a Jewish person might change after people find out that they are a Jew. They didn't suddenly switch from white to nonwhite in a material way, those categories don't really exist, but the way they are viewed and accordingly how they are treated did.
*has been
Not rolled out yet though
Why don't you read some US history, I implore you to, then visit some of the nonwhite neighborhoods in major German cities and you will see how relevant it is for us today.
Nope, its the same Palestinian = hamas bs that allows them to label everyone enemies and only differentiate between "combatants" and "noncombatants"
Nope they haven't. They are justified in their attacks. Just stop the genocide. That's it. Also the US and Allies have been doing that anyway for the past decade or so what's the difference.
No no its
Your country is actively supporting {insert country with deranged policies supported by your government} from committing {insert warcrime}. Please send me your address so I can torch your house.
Which, as a German, I find fair.
We will never negotiate with terrorists who demand an end to genocide!
What about fish??
What's the "Nordic labor model"?
OK excuse me you talk about material "fucking" conditions and ignore or relativize the colonial history of the Hegemon. You're in for a rude awakening if you think your rapprochement of liberal "hearts and minds" or whatever the fuck it is that you're looking to accomplish will ever be possible. I urge you so much more to read that exact book I'm pushing if only to see how the white communists and socialists and unionists kept fucking things up and kept playing into the racist divide with these kind of civility politics that you're pushing, while ignoring the native american or black american comrade. Because its these divides that are currently being amped up right here in Germany, the second most subservient country to the Hegemon.
Im going to disengage here. I am one last time going to urge you to read that book. Also just because there seems to be a misunderstanding here let me say that I'm not USian, I'm german.
Setting out to pan gold is precisely not setting out to murder Chinese is what I'm saying, that was plan C or D thought up long after arriving.
Oh I see what you meant. To me that still reads like they were simply misled on who to plunder and what the loot would be.
But regardless I do agree that what you said was OPs message and I also agree with it, but I don't think it will be achieved by appealing to sentiment, whitewashing history, especially where the wealth comes from, and in general trying to appease the crowd with false equivalences, because they serve to hide the root of the present injustices. Furthermore I see no reason to be charitable to someone like Robert Reich.
Edit I don't know enough about the chinese immigrants to comment on what brought them to the US. In racist terms chinese and east asians are considered "yellow" not "white".
I don't know how we're reading the same sentence and arrive at opposite conclusions. Even if you were right about the goldrush in indian land not being a motivating factor for droves of immigrants I think my larger point, how incomparable the motivation for white immigrants and the currently oppressed immigrants is, still stands by the actions the europeans undertook upon arrival. This is not about dividing people into racist groups, but clearly talking about the racial divide that was drawn up by the capitalist class. Not talking about the deep racism in the european immigrant movement, regardless of their class status, in fear of "deepening grudges" is revisionist.
I am unable to dissect everything going on with your comment, I urge you to read the book for yourself. The profiting off slavery didn't stop with slavery, it is core to the wealth of the US empire which attracted the european immigrants who were looking to be part of an economy which at its motor had slavery for centuries and, after that, the continued oppression and segregation of it's non-white communities. The distinction is between chattel and wage-slavery where the working class was divided along racial lines. These immigrants came with the goal of taking the jobs of non-white people, tying their fortune to the continued oppression of non-white people. Again, please read the book it's plain as day. To quote another section:
What was the essence of the ideology of white labor? Petit-bourgeois annexationism. … But, typically, their petit-bourgeois vision saw for themselves a special, better kind of wage-slavery. The ideology of white labor held that as loyal citizens of the Empire even wage-slaves had a right to special privileges (such as “white man’s wages”), beginning with the right to monopolize the labor market.
We must cut sharply through the liberal camouflage concealing this question. It is insufficient - and therefore misleading - to say that European workers wished to “discriminate against” or “exclude” or were “prejudiced against” colored workers. It was the labor of Afrikan and Indian workers that created the economy of the original Amerika; likewise, the economy of the Southwest was distilled from the toil of the Indian/Mexicano workers, and that of Northern California and the Pacific Northwest was built by Mexicano and Chinese labor. Immigrant European workers proposed to enter an economy they hadn’t built, and ‘annex’, so as to speak, the jobs that the nationally oppressed had created.
And that last line is meant literally, it's about the riots and lynchings these immigrants took part in in order to take the jobs that had traditionally be held by non-white workers. Talking about the chinese workers who had built the railroad for example:
The time-distance across the continent was now cut to two weeks, and cheap railroad tickets brought a flood of European workers to the West. There was, of course, an established settler traditon of terrorism towards Chinese. The Shasta Republican complained in its Dec. 12, 1856 issue that: "Hundreds of Chinamen have been slaughtered in cold blood in the last 5 years...the murder of Chinamen was of almost daily occurrence." Now the new legions of immigrant European workers demanded a qualitative increase in the terroristic assaults, and the 1870's and 1880's were decades of mass bloodshed.
The issue was very clear-cut - jobs. By 1870, some 42% of the whites in California were European immigrants. With their dreams of finding gold boulders lying in the streams having faded before reality, these new crowds of Europeans demanded the jobs that Chinese labor had created. More than demanded, they were determined to "annex", to seize by force of conquest, all that Chinese workers had in the West. In imitation of the bourgeoisie they went about plundering with bullets and fire. In mining camps and towns from Colorado to Washington, Chinese communities came under attack. Many Chinese were shot down, beaten, their homes and stores set afire and gutted. In Los Angeles Chinese were burned alive by the European vigilantes, who also shot and tortured many others.
That you would paint the rise of the liberal capitalist class as something to be cheered on by the oppressed and as the beginning of an end to racism beggars belief, it were the workers fleeing capitalism in europe that formed the vanguard of the oppression against the non-white workers. The book goes into great detail about the workers that europe was bleeding, which forced it's capitalist class to make the concessions you mentioned. They indeed brought the ideas of liberalism with them into the US, its just that these ideas of "equality" never were about solidarity among workers across the present racial lines.
Here the full address:
Notable bits:
Today the Supreme People's Assembly newly legalized the policy of our Republic toward the south on the basis of putting an end to the nearly 80 year-long history of inter-Korean relations and recognizing the two states both existing in the Korean peninsula.
As solemnly clarified at the 2023 December Plenary Meeting of the Party Central Committee, our Party, government and people had shown great magnanimity and tireless patience and made sincere efforts always with the view that those of the ROK are still the fellow countrymen and compatriots in the long period of history and even discussed with them the great cause of national reunification in a candid manner.
But it is the final conclusion drawn from the bitter history of the inter-Korean relations that we cannot go along the road of national restoration and reunification together with the ROK clan that adopted as its state policy the all-out confrontation with our Republic, dreaming of the "collapse of our government" and "unification by absorption," and lost compatriotic consciousness, getting more vicious and arrogant in the madcap confrontational racket.
The north-south relations have been completely fixed into the relations between two states hostile to each other and the relations between two belligerent states, not the consanguineous or homogeneous ones any more. This is the present situation of the relations between the north and the south today caused by the heinous and self-destructive confrontational maneuvers of the ROK, a group of outsiders' top-class stooges, and the true picture of the Korean peninsula just unveiled before the world.
I have already recalled at the recent plenary meeting that the so-called constitution of the ROK openly stipulates that "the territory of the ROK covers the Korean peninsula and its attached islands".
...
There is no provision specifying such definition in the existing constitution of our country. Since our Republic definitely defined the ROK as a foreign country and the most hostile state after completely eliminating the original concept contradictory to reality that the ROK is the partner for reconciliation and reunification and the fellow countrymen, it is necessary to take legal steps to legitimately and correctly define the territorial sphere where the sovereignty of the DPRK as an independent socialist nation is exercised.
In my opinion, we can specify in our constitution the issue of completely occupying, subjugating and reclaiming the ROK and annex it as a part of the territory of our Republic in case of a war breaks out on the Korean peninsula.
And I think it is right to specify in the relevant paragraph of our constitution that such linguistic remnants misinterpreting the north and the south as fellow countrymen as "3 000-ri tapestry-like land" and "80 million compatriots" are not used in the political, ideological, mental and cultural life of our people, and that education should be intensified to instill into them the firm idea that ROK is their primary foe and invariable principal enemy.
For the present, we should take strict stepwise measures to thoroughly block all the channels of north-south communication along the border, including the one of physically and completely cutting off the railway tracks in our side, which existed as a symbol of north-south exchange and cooperation, to an irretrievable level.
We should also completely remove the eye-sore "Monument to the Three Charters for National Reunification" standing at the southern gateway to the capital city of Pyongyang and take other measures so as to completely eliminate such concepts as "reunification", "reconciliation" and "fellow countrymen" from the national history of our Republic.
All good points. Except powershell. Fuck that.