Objection

The number of false rape accusations is absolutely dwarfed by the number of rapists who get off scot free. While false accusations do happen, to set the standard at only believing women when the perpetrator is convicted in a court of law (which you can find people doing all over lib instances right now) excuses more than 96% of all rapes. There is literally a 4% difference between that, and just straight up excusing rape altogether.

In the particular case of Platner, there was already an accuser who didn't tank his campaign, because people were justifiably skeptical of her political affiliations. The second accuser, however, presented credible evidence, including records of conversations from long before Platner had entered politics. It was only at this point that many different progressive figures who had endorsed him withdrew their support and called on him to drop out. So any attempts to shift the goalposts and pretend that people turning on him will just automatically believe anything and everything any woman says with zero skepticism, are obviously complete bullshit.

"Why did she keep quiet until now?" The vast majority of rape victims never take the case to the courts, ever, because they know that the chances of anything actually coming from it are incredibly low. And when the perpetrator goes free, they will now be in the position of looking like a false accuser, with the social stigma that comes with it.

Here's a little challenge, a way to conceptualize this. Roll a D20. On anything but a 1, a rapist just went free. If you do get a 1, roll it again. On a 17 or higher, the rapist still goes free. Keep rolling that die until you convict a single rapist, and post a comment telling me how many rapists got off before that.

Also, just a reminder: Platner is already out. The justification of, "We need to defend him because he's the only shot against a worse evil" no longer applies. At this point, anyone defending him is just in it for the love of the game. Frankly, if you were excusing his red flags before, you should be reconsidering whether your way of thinking was flawed. But if you're still defending him even now, I don't even know what to say. If no part of "rapist killer-for-hire with a Nazi tattoo" is a deal-breaker for you, then you are not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, I try not to talk shit without having the receipts. So here's a little selection of what I'm talking about:

:::spoiler Misogyny

Notes:

The map I used didn't include Turkey (US ally) or Gaza as part of Palestine. Palestine and Lebanon are the only countries that have only been attacked by Israel and not the US directly. Pakistan is technically a US ally and Lebanon has security agreements with the US, but neither host US troops.

For every single country in the oil-rich Middle East, the options are to let the US troops come voluntarily, or to fight them off when they attack.

I did another version for China btw:

https://bsky.app/profile/starlightnoelle.bsky.social/post/3lmxtf6op4c2q

What a ride.

The political compass is an attempt to reduce incredibly complicated political questions into two simple lines, and people accept it because it aligns with oversimplified narratives and cultural preconceptions.

"Liberty" and "authority" have little meaning beyond "good" and "bad." If authority is defined more rigorously, or if we use more neutral terms like "centralization" or public vs private, then it becomes a lot less clear that what we're talking about is contrary to "liberty." The private sector, and private individuals, can be just as restrictive of liberty.

Perhaps the clearest example of this is the American Civil War. The southerners were the champions of decentralization, they spoke constantly about how they were fighting for "liberty" against the supposed tyranny of the northerners - and the reason they wanted "states' rights" and decentralization is that they would be able to keep people enslaved. It was big, centralized government, that evil "authoritarian" force imposing it's authority that resulted in a greater degree of liberty. But that is not just some freak exception.

If someone can't go out at night without fear of being attacked, that person is no more "free" to go out than if they feared legal repercussions. Governments are, at their worst, no different from a criminal organization, and yet there is this tendency to assign special status to restrictions imposed by the law, rather than being on the same level as restrictions imposed by private individuals or organizations.

And again, we can see how "big government" or "authoritarianism" can increase liberty in the context of regulations, of pollution, of food safety, and of untested drugs. If I can trust regulators to stop a restaurant from serving anything unsafe, then I'm free to order anything off the menu, whereas if not, then everything's a gamble and I might feel restricted to foods I expect to be "safe," if I don't avoid the restaurant entirely.

There once was a time when states viewed things like murder as a personal dispute between families, and didn't generally get involved. This led to all kinds of generational feuds, with people killing each other over a long forgotten dispute between their great-grandfathers. Was that "liberty?" Is that something we should idealize and try to return to?

I'm sure there are people who will read this as me being "pro-authoritarian" and ignoring all the bad things done by states. But that's missing the point. The point is not that centralization or state power are always good, the point is that it's not automatically bad. Having a knee-jerk reaction against it is just oversimplifying complicated issues, and doing so in a way that lots of powerful people want you to do. Because the ruling class understands that they can wield private institutions and privatization just as they can wield public institutions.

You can't just blindly apply an idealist ideological framework of "anti-authoritarianism" to every problem and expect that to produce good results. You have to look at things on a case-by-case basis, applying class analysis.

This remains relevant as Ukraine has never apologized for these atrocities, continues to reject that these attacks constituted "genocide," and has criticized Poland for establishing July 11 as a day for commemorating the victims. And of course, it still uses the same slogans ("Slava Ukraini"), the same symbols (such as the red and black flag), and reveres Stepan Bandera (who was the head of the OUN, which in turn founded the UPA which carried out these attacks).

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5524375

Context 1 2

Many abolitionists have complained to me that, as a traveling performer, I have not spoken to my audiences on the issue of slavery. I have received many angry letters attacking me based on assumptions about what my silence means.

Allow me to make my position clear: I oppose the institution of slavery. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, I believe it is a "moral depravity." I feel that way about other things as well.

After the raid on Harper's Ferry, the mood among Southern leaders was an existential panic and unstoppable lust for revenge. It reminded me of the Alamo. There was no reasoning with those leaders, nor could action be taken by congress. It would have required replacing most of congress and overturning decades of bipartisan negotiation and compromises. Even in the best case, it would have taken years.

But even worse, the abolitionist, pro-Negro movement quickly decided that their primary goal was not merely opposition to the reprisals or specifically cruel owners, but opposition to the entire institution of slavery, that is, opposition to the entire way of life of Southern plantation owners. And here they decided to draw the line between decent people and oppressive tyrants, which had the following consequences:

It shrunk the coalition. Most southerners support slavery. Anyone who supports the solution of having slave states and free states supports slavery.

It was politically infeasible. What is the pathway that takes us from the present situation to the abolition of slavery as an institution? I do not see how it could happen without a total collapse of the union. As usual, these Jacobins have championed a doomed cause.

The abolitionists have been distributing hundreds of pamphlets about the horrid conditions of slaves. The main effect of this has been to create a population of people in a constant state of bloodboiling rage with no consequential political outlet.

I fear this may be worse than useless. Yes, there are disingenuous proponents of slavery dismissing and censoring all criticism of slavery on the pretext of "states' rights." But there's also valid fear of historical government overreach and that fear gives power to pro-slavery leaders who say that only they can protect Southern culture.

Does this mean slavery should not be criticized? Absolutely not. But it's something I do not wish to contribute to unless if not outweighed by tangible benefits.

Many abolitionists have been single-mindedly focused on slavery, and the willingness of the Republicans to compromise on the issue, and that focus has had the following effects:

Not a single slave was freed by their efforts. Not one fewer lash was delivered by the owners.

It may have slightly contributed to the election of James Buchanan, ensuring that nothing can be done to stop the expansion of slavery into new states. Buchanan also does not support giving women like me the right to vote. A perfectly enlightened being would feel no bitterness about this, but I do.

None of this is the fault of slaves, of course, who are overwhelmingly the victims here.

But if women like me are ever going to get anywhere in this country, we need a broad movement that stands up for the rights of ALL women, REGARDLESS of their views on slavery.

"By your logic, you could justify a foreign armed insurgency against the US government"

link

Wait shit, I gotta come up with a different bit. Germans are already a thing.