DADDYCHILL

im not trying to do a bi erasure, bi people are valid. im just saying as someone who was bi sexual who later became pan sexual after learning about the term i just think changing some of the letters around would be good ways to raise awareness about different genders and sexualities in the acronym. so many people know what lgbt is but they dont really know the plus part. the first four are really important to the broader conception of gender and sexual identity as a whole. look if we can change the flag i dont think the acronym is sacrosanct either, i do however think we need an acronym.

i think lesbian, gay, and bisexual should be lower on the acronym. i think trans people should be first since they are receiving most of the targeting and attacks out of any group in the community right now, i think pansexuals, asexuals, and nonbinaries could really benefit from a representation bump. TPAN, rolls off the tongue. we can keep lgbt too. nobody got rid of the pride flag after the progress flag. both can exist at the same time. i just think its a representation issue.

disagree, queer is not all encompassing. if you dont identify as queer but you still want to identify with the community the acronym is still the best descriptor. as for the order, i do support updating it by putting trans first and pushing bisexuals down the list in favor of pansexuals.

LEARN THE FUCKING ACRONYM!!!!

degrowth is the left's the answer to malthusianism, you cant run out of resources if you dont overconsume them. but we lie to ourselves that less material wealth will make people happy, people own things because things make you feel good, and people overcompensate with things to fill an empty hole inside them that things really cant fill. and that sense of wanting more that capitalism causes is not really the fault of the stuff but more like people having no motivation, socialization, or time to really be happy.

divorced dads dont buy sports cars for no reason.

doing the necessary thing often isnt popular, and i think thats why the whole ecofashism thing is a thing, why give up your consumption when you can take someone elses? i feel like actually solving climate change will result in lower standards of living for everyone, even the global south, and only ideologically motivated people are going to willingly go along with degrowth. the alternative is doing nothing and paying for it in the future. of course communism isnt exactly utilitarian either, the global south should seek some retribution against the north for all the years of oppression, a disproportionate punishment for colonialism, slavery, and persecution against the beneficiaries of capitalism might be necessary in order to get the global south to do degrowth, like why should they give up their treats in equal measure with the west when the west has been stealing their treats for centuries? the south dont owe the north shit.

the bud light boycott says youre wrong, chuds killed a brand of beer because trans people exist. people individually need to make the decision not to consume things if we wish to see a collective change in society. for example, a meat ban, something i do unironcially support despite all the irony poisoning itt. we do it now without changing peoples behavior, theres just going to be a huge black market. i unironcially think we should still do it, but there are times when a more moderate and gradual approach is a more viable option than the radical one.

we should start with education, ban meat on mondays in schools, then make meat friday only, we need to start introducing plant-based meat into the general food supply, start requiring burger joints to sell their burgers with a percentage of tofu in it, tax the fuck out of meat, make it harder to obtain and make vegan alternatives just easier, over time meat consumption will drop. eventually we will need to cull the huge amount of farm animals because they cant be released into the wild, its going to take a generation to ban high sea fishing and hunting in the west ideally, probably several generations bare minimum. but eventually through enough perservance we could outlaw it globally.

and say we leftists did a jan 6, we stormed the whitehouse and declared bernie the president, that would result in a bunch of reactionaries fighting us and we literally are not in a position to win a war. so we got to use the baby gloves, but trust me, when we no longer have to, we gotta punch the nazis in the fucking face and implement leftist policies quickly. until we have like actual political power, we got do change through electoralism and radical reform.

so yeah, shaming consumers even for little things is necessary because we cant just issue a mandate. just dont shame comrades because we should expect the nonpolitically aligned people to change their ways first. but what do i know, im just some person on the internet yelling at people for liking things and being blatantly obvious about how im not doing the things i tell them to do. maybe satire is a better form of criticism.

to quote star trek, pay attention to everything i say, especially the lies.

five is way too low a number, honestly i dont think there is a number. you know what, there are exactly six hundred arguments in the entirety of communism, including this one. no im not making this up, ive read theory, carl marx specifically says theres only six hundred issues in communism.