Nah

I’m willing to commit to not shitting in your kitchen. 💜 No thanks needed.

I’m a queer anarchist 😂 It’s not that complicated. And yeah… You start telling people they need to aggressively support something or get out… I’m calling you facist.

☝️☝️☝️

👏👏👏

💜

Fucking hilarious! I didn’t get banned! Common mods, don’t you stand by your values? I’m not “aggressively pro trans” or whatever so let’s do this! Ban the ENBY.

ENBY Anarchist here. I’ll gladly take my ban.

🤟😊🖕 🏳️‍🌈 Facist

The fact that they already have significantly better outcomes in terms of land stewardship compared to dominant groups.

Generalizations suck. Over 80% of Canada is undeveloped. And just aside from that, our ecological issues are far greater then land stewardship.

The fact that only those in a marginalized community will be able to effectively understand and create policy that addresses marginalization in meaningful ways.

I don’t see how this is relevant.

The fact that nearly every truly meaningful radical idea has already come out of marginalized groups, and will, by all available evidence, continue to do so.

Oh really? EVERY truly meaningful radical idea has come out of marginalized groups? You’re telling me white people haven’t contributed at all? Seriously… That’s the position you’re taking.

Ultimately my problem with everything you’re saying is it’s rooted in racism. I can’t support that shit.

That’s right, some critiques do make more sense then others! Gold star! 🌟

Anyone can critique society.

The noble Savage trope is itself a racist trope that came out of colonial Europeans bigoted beliefs that indigenous could not possibly be civilized, and thus that any seemingly civilized points made by an indigenous person were actually made by Europeans as a critique of their own culture. Look into Kandiaronk and Lahontan. There is mountains of proof that not only did Kandiaronk exist, but that he directly participated in debates with the European governments that colonized the area he was from. There is Absolutely no evidence that any of what Kandiaronk said was anything other than his own words, yet the noble savage myth allows Europeans to claim that he couldn’t possibly have done so. So, no, I don’t think this is noble savage stuff, and I think the noble savage myth serves primarily to prevent meaningful critique from coming from outside of the dominant hierarchies by infantilizing indigenous people.

Regardless of what Kamdiaronk said I don’t think it’s right to stereotype indigenous people right here right now.

The noble Savage trope is itself a racist trope that came out of colonial Europeans bigoted beliefs that indigenous could not possibly be civilized, and thus that any seemingly civilized points made by an indigenous person were actually made by Europeans as a critique of their own culture. Look into Kandiaronk and Lahontan. There is mountains of proof that not only did Kandiaronk exist, but that he directly participated in debates with the European governments that colonized the area he was from. There is Absolutely no evidence that any of what Kandiaronk said was anything other than his own words, yet the noble savage myth allows Europeans to claim that he couldn’t possibly have done so. So, no, I don’t think this is noble savage stuff, and I think the noble savage myth serves primarily to prevent meaningful critique from coming from outside of the dominant hierarchies by infantilizing indigenous people.

Regardless of what Kamdiaronk said I don’t think it’s right to stereotype indigenous people right here right now.

The ones coming up with truly radical, meaningful, workable solutions will be from groups more marginalized than I.

Based on what?

Fuck… I never thought about indigenous Europeans. Does this mean Brexit was technically an anti-colonism movement?

Other people seem to have no issue understanding. I think my coconut comment was on point, and the fact that you responded referencing Luddites shows I’ve explained myself perfectly fine.

What specifically don’t you understand about me saying I think this is hypocritical?

we need to listen to these marginalized communities.

Dude… Why are you speaking as if you’re not indigenous now?

and that it is likely that even my best of ideas will be lacking in intersectional analysis that is needed to develop real, powerful solutions.

It turns out the solution to global warming was friendship all along 🌈

I think it’s hypocritical.

Do you have a source? I think this is possibly a misunderstanding. Australia’s aboriginals did controlled burns, but Australia’s desert predates humans (from my research).

While saying that indigenous people are inherently more connected to nature is at best iffy however I think the point the comic was trying to make is that on a general basis indigenous are (or were depending on how much of their culture and history has been destroyed) more knowledgeable of the lands that they have been inhabiting. More specifically compared to the colonisers that invaded their land.

I see this as racist rhetoric, and I think the point of the comic was to be divisive. It’s not that I don’t understand the reasoning, it’s that I’m looking at it from a step back.

Like if I made an anti-crime meme, and tossed in that blackmen are convicted, and charged with more crimes, the racism would be a lot more apparent because it’s promoting negative bias towards blacks.

But this shit isn’t any less racist, it’s just more palatable.

Then this is a good opportunity for you to check your confirmation bias. You and I both know you’re not replying to me with a coconut radio.

Noble Savage shit.

THAT’S the term! Thank you! It was reminding me of the Mystical Blackman trope.

I’m just gonna stop and bitch for a second. As friggen disappointing as it is to see left leaning individuals adopt bigioted attitudes, do you know what the real disappointment is? All the people that don’t say something. All the people that don’t do something.

People will sit there and talk about bringing down the system, about how horrible the right is, “eat the rich” and all that. They’ll post memes everyday about challenging the status quo, but when push comes to shove it’s crickets.

Meanwhile I’m getting ready to kamakazi my latest social group for the umpteenth time because someone in the group was intentionally violating the personal space of another. I know no one is going to have my back.

People talk a lot lately about the paradox of tolerance and use that as justification for censoring certain political opinions. The problem isn’t tolerance though, it’s the silence. It’s people not wanting to make themselves uncomfortable, or unpopular.

-ninja edit-

After some discussions with chatGPT what im describing relates to “The Spiral of Silence”

The phenomenon you are describing is known as the “spiral of silence.” The spiral of silence theory, proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in the 1970s, explains how public opinion is formed and how individuals may withhold expressing their views if they perceive them to be in the minority. This theory is often applied to political and social contexts, including the rise of ideologies like fascism.

In the context of fascism or any other controversial ideology, the spiral of silence suggests that when people believe their opinions are not widely supported, they tend to remain silent and refrain from expressing their views publicly. This silence, in turn, can create an illusion that the majority supports the prevailing ideology, even if it might not be the case. As a result, individuals who disagree with the ideology might feel isolated and discouraged from speaking out, contributing to the seeming growth and acceptance of the ideology.

Several factors contribute to the spiral of silence phenomenon:

1. Fear of isolation: People often fear social isolation or rejection, so they may choose to keep their dissenting opinions to themselves to avoid potential negative consequences.

2. Perceived social norms: Individuals may gauge the acceptability of their views by observing the prevailing opinions within their social circles and in the media. If they believe their views deviate significantly from the perceived norm, they are more likely to remain silent.

3. Amplification of dominant views: When a particular ideology gains prominence and is amplified through media coverage or dominant social groups, people may perceive its support to be more significant than it actually is.

4. Social media echo chambers: Online platforms can exacerbate the spiral of silence by creating echo chambers where people are exposed only to like-minded opinions, leading them to believe their views are in the minority.

The spiral of silence can hinder healthy democratic discourse, as it suppresses the diversity of opinions and prevents the exchange of ideas. Overcoming this phenomenon requires fostering an environment that encourages open dialogue, respect for diverse perspectives, and protection for free speech. By promoting inclusivity and ensuring that people feel comfortable expressing their opinions without fear of retribution, societies can better counter the rise of ideologies like fascism and encourage constructive debates on important issues.

✌️😝

I think it’s fucking weird the comic attempted to differentiate indigenous from the rest of humanity so that’s specifically what I’m taking issue with.