I think that part of the essay might have been about how addressing him as Mr. Firstname is actually more formal than Mr. Lastname, even though Firstname is not his family name

Could it be Turkish? Just stumbled on this section on the Wikipedia article on mononyms

Surnames were introduced in Turkey only after World War I, by the country's first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of his Westernization and modernization programs. Common people can be addressed semi-formally by their given name plus the title Bey or Hanım (without surname), whereas politicians are often known by surname only (Ecevit, Demirel).

To add; Having indigenous or African ancestry doesn't automatically protect you from adopting white supremacist beliefs

The BLM stuff moved a lot of minorities (Asians and others) away from the left

Can you expand on this? I haven't stumbled upon this before

It all matters.

Acknowledging how society divide and conquer, seperate and atomize citizens into segregated social groups, often linked to immutable traits, is essential to combat capitalism and tear down class dividers.

There's a reason bell hooks coined "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". These are interconnected oppressive systems. They strengthen and sustain each other, and one cannot be defeated without the others. Additionally; If you do not stand in solidarity with those who face a multitude of oppressive structures, they have less resources to fight the oppressive capitalist structures

Ignoring everything but capitalism is similar to white feminism ignoring everything but gendered oppression.

All women are not free until everyone is free.

All workers are not free until everyone is free

All black, indigenous, people of color and racialized minorities are not free until everyone is free

All LGBTQ+ people are not free until everyone is free

There is no workers' liberation without women's liberation without black people's liberation without queer people's liberation without disabled people liberation without...

You cannot mobilize the working class without addressing the very real, oppressive structures that have very real, negative impact on people's lives.

Race isn't real, and the idea that people are physically separated into racial groups is not real. That's a human made, social construct.

But racism is real. Humans separating humans into different social groups based on the socially constructed idea of "race" is real. And the effects of racism is real. Different rights and treatment being allocated humans based on these social groups are real. And therefore, the shared struggles against structural oppression within these groups are very real - despite the basis of these social groups' creation being a social construct

Not acknowledging the multitude of struggles and oppressive systems present in imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy makes it impossible to stand in true solidarity with fellow workers, across social groups. It'll inevitably lead to reinforcing the unrecognized oppressive structures, and stand in the way of a united working class.

Racism is still free speech which sucks but the alternative is high censorship and fear

This is incorrect, and only serves those who target marginalized groups.

I wanna make it very clear that the conclusion that restriction of hate speech is a slippery slope for freedom of speech is not a given or universally held position

You can absolutely introduce laws prohibiting hate speech without introducing high censorship or fear. Many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech, including most European countries and a majority of, what Wikipedia calls, developed democracies.

Even countries that don't have limits for hate inducing speech towards marginalized groups, with reference to the importance of freedom of speech, rarely have complete freedom of speech.

As an example, the US limits to freedom of speech include "fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."

The claim that intolerance to intolerance is dangerous, only serves the spread of intolerance.

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.

Rosenfeld contrasts the approach to hate speech between Western European democracies and the United States, pointing out that among Western European nations, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such,[13] while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and cannot be restricted, except when endorsements of violence or other illegal activities are made explicit.

source

maybe we can knock it off with the underlying red herring sexism. We know already karen is a catch all term to get the hate pointed at women and off of the gun toting proudboys.

"Karen" started as a term for white women weaponizing their whiteness to behave unreasonable, aggressive and entitled towards BIPOCs, despite being marginalized themselves, through their gender.

White men has conveniently left out the whiteness that they themselves participate in, and focused in on the white women, essentializing the unreasonable, aggressive and entitled behaviour as linked to white women's gender, rather than their whiteness

Classic co-opting. A social dominant group taking a term that's been used by marginalized groups to critique the systemic oppression inherent in current power structures; and instead use it to uphold and reinforce the current power structures and their inherent oppressive systems.

I don't hate Jewish people, but I am certain with all this bullshit they Israel are pulling (whilst claiming it's on behalf of Jewish people), the population of people that do is growing.

FTFY

This planet is just one part of it and in order for the universe to have a healthy gut we would have to terra form the planets and make healthy worlds.

...

I want to question the assumption that an increase of Earth-like planets would be better than the current state of the universe.

The idea that the current state of the universe is unhealthy, and needs us to save it by increasing homogeneity by altering other planets to look more like ours..

I'm just gonna say it.

It's eerily reminiscent of the colonizers' mindset of "saving the world by making it more like us"

It comes from the assumption that others' current state of being is inferior to ours, and need to be fixed, by us assimilating then into our, superior, state of being. It comes from an assumption that there exists inferior and superior states at all, and that superior states of being should be strived towards. Rather than assuming that diversity is better than homogeneity, and different states of being are neither inferior or superior, they simply are.

I question the idea that us changing the universe to resemble us, would be superior to the current state of the universe

Scandinavian colonizer

People using they/them pronouns: