I mean, I have no shame in acknowledging that I too had and may still have from time to time some resentment. Maybe I'm projecting? But I do see in your writing the mindspace I recognize personally. It's part of being in a privileged position while also suffering the negative consequences of said privilege. It really is uncomfortable to be told that I'm the problem when, from my point of view, I'm trying to get rid of the problem.
But both are true, so I do think it's easier to get through this by letting go of this peeve. Yeah sure a bunch of women will say they'd rather come across a bear when hiking, some will wear t-shirts saying that all men are garbage, some misandrists will yell that all cis males need to have their dicks chopped off. But if that's what the majority of your experience of "the left" is, there's something wrong with the composition of your social life. "The left" is more than that, and in that regard it's just a fine place to be, even if it's one that will not let me forget that I still have lots of ingrained sexism - I really do, I would not pass infinitely narrow "purity tests" as you say. Same for racism, transphobia, ageism, ableism etc (which is why I said this experience is universal).
Sure, it means “redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all” but it sure doesn’t say that.
So what's the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?
Why is "eat the reach" messaging that "lost the plot" if the slogan does exactly what it's supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?
And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute “source demographic” with “individual in that demographic?”
I don't know, you tell me. I don't see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding "eat the rich" plaques. I still don't quite get what's this phrase being used as an example for given it's so inconsequential.
I see. You are resentful for having your flaws exposed by people who do not concern themselves with making this comfortable for you. That, I can agree, is a common experience for men. It's not the same thing as "the left says that you're evil because you have a Y chromosome", though.
The irony is that this isn't specific to men either. The same journey applies to everyone. Hope you find a group that can help you grow in a safer space, though such things are not a given, unfortunately.
I don't understand the point for which "eat the rich" is the case, nor what you mean with "natural issues". Yes, systemic issues are generally associated with a particular in-group and a particular out-group, that's how they tend to become systemic - oppression has a source and a target. And?
Yeah, it's probably more expensive to design a system that covers Seattle but doesn't cover Vancouver just because they're so close. Same thing for Toronto and Montreal. And in there you already have more than a third of the Canadian population.
You're missing the point. It's not that "biological clocks" are irrelevant, and it's not that housing doesn't affect family planning.
The point is that the motivation behind housing affordability shouldn't be restoring/protecting a funcional utility of women.
There's no reason to single out women in the first place. A less dystopian statement would be something closer to what you said: families need housing affordability so they can realize whatever shape of family they dream of. If a gay couple wants to adopt two kids and three dogs, they also deserve affordability.
If you're not a woman or not attuned to sexism and heteronormativity in everyday speech, this might sound like nitpicking. But this kind of phrasing is a telling signal that foreshadows regressive policies.
It's not like we're not trying, but building stuff is harder and costlier than destroying stuff. In this case, the "stuff" is kinship. For this vulnerable audience, it's easy to break into self-centredness and in-group thinking.
Meh people keep saying this, but this comes mostly from the right that likes to amplify the most fringe leftist stuff for rage bait. The predominant message from the left is that men need help. Leftist outlets, influencers, thinkers and communicators routinely try to bridge that gap, but the "fuck your feelings" crowd is only interested in hate-watching the tiktoks of a random punk saying that men are shit.
Kind of ironic that as a Coal Harbour resident, the scariest person of the neighbourhood is a bald white dude that harasses any visibly vulnerable that passes by, also random people at times but he's a bully so he prefers harassing the homeless, delivery drivers and random minorities. He lives at the building right in front of mine and I'd trade him for getting as new neighbours 10 currently unhoused citizens undergoing treatment, because this bald fuck surely isn't treating whatever he has going on. Fucking "concerned citizens", much worse than whoever makes them clutch pearls.
Which is totally normal? Most countries have a difficult time with talent retention in the military because it's basically a public servant with extra hot spice when you don't want any spice. Hate meetings and power tripping bosses? Well imagine your company is composed of the same people but the hierarchy is 5x bigger and they're harder to fire and they're more macho and into guns.
The exception in terms of retention is maybe the US that uses the insane cost of higher education to lure people in debt into the military payroll, but I wouldn't wish a similar system on my compatriots. Also probably Israel is another exception not to follow...
Nah DOGE has never been about efficiency, it’s just plain old cutting services by making institutions dysfunctional.
Not that the results of replacing public servants with AI with give wildly different results, but at least it’s going to be ridiculously slow and expensive so it’s easier to rollback
Yes, it always has been propaganda. Central and South America has suffered at the hands of American exceptionalism and propaganda for generations. The difference is that now the gaze of imperialism is pointing inwards and to the north as well, which is unusual.
It doesn’t matter. If you look around, most authoritarian leaders have no more charisma than him. Personality just means a fabricated persona, marketing and propaganda.
In theory, nothing. In practice, half as much of what’s wrong with conservatism. But I was referring to “enlightened centrism” is more specific: the tendency to position oneself in the middle of two ‘extremes’ because it’s a comfortable position, to play a role of enlightened by always taking a both-sides stance. That’s what I’m referring to as a fantasy, because we know that in practice, for the core issues of politics, almost always there is a wrong side of history stance.
lol fair enough, and it's perhaps a not very useful point to dwell anyway, it seems it was just an example