Is the alt-left a thing?

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:41 pm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/6/ ... d-all-that

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:09 pm

No.

Not sure if my comment is welcomed but here it goes.

The alt right is white supremacy. White supremacy and socialism are contradictory. Not sure how you can be both. That a socialist can be racist yes, but socialism is about liberation not oppression. Both premises conflict.

I'm with the left in my country and only one man equates Hillary with Trump and I remind you people that the Clintons imposed nafta on us which meant a loss of land and the rise of poverty in the north triangle. I went to Mexico and saw the extent of damage of those policies. And those people here still say Trump is worse. Because he is. The libertardians which should be a leftist movement, but it was hijacked by liberals and now is on the far right are the only ones spouting anti Clinton propaganda. Even doing a video saying "why do you want to turn America into Latin America? " to divert aka waste the Hispanic vote for Clinton to the idiot Gary Johnson. Also because we are brown so racism affects us and therefore we will see things different, maybe things are manifesting different. So if things are going crazy with the left in your area, I'm just going to blame it on white people. As always.

But I doubt the left is the real issue here, is not. The poisoning failed ideology of liberalism disguised as libertarianism is a bigger threat since its more sweetening to the 'poors in denial'.

I do think that denouncing the horrors of imperialism is good for everyone, knowing how your vote ends up affecting the world. But like you, feels kind of dishonest that all of the sudden white people care about racism and imperialism and who are they going to bomb. When years ago they were "in am not in fault for my foreign policy blah blah blah " I know once the campaign is over people will go back to not giving a crap as always.

This issue frustrates me a bit. People are so dumb.

Also tell DA is Colombia, dammit!

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:15 pm

I knew that.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Oct 15, 2016 4:15 pm

Also, speaking of Colombia...

http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary- ... -colombia/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:51 am

Your comments are always welcomed Liszt.

My preliminary investigations have uncovered that there are two competing usages of the term. Some anti-sjw liberals and right-wingers have tried to use the term to refer to the sjw or so-called "regressive" left. But, there are some lefties and liberals who have been using the term to refer to lefties who prioritize class/capitalism over civil rights, and end up saying and doing a lot of racist/sexist things in the process(like Bernie bros and others). I think some have used the term alt-left because of this racism/sexism...which isn't really as vitriolic as it is on the right, but often takes the form of mild apologia. Because of that, there's potential for connection between the extremes.

https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-s ... .9kwif89pf

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:23 am

That reminds me of stats showing that lower-income whites were actually more likely to be Democrat than Republican, and contrary to public perception, Trump supporters are richer and more financially stable than the average American.

I do think that there needs to be a greater emphasis on class privilege on the SJW side, and one of my main frustrations with that subculture is how it's mostly made up of insular college elites steeped in academia and usually fairly high up on the class ladder. I'm a triple minority in the US but I'm doing pretty ok financially, and that plus my college education already makes my life a lot easier than most, at least materially speaking. So it makes me uncomfortable when I'm presented as super-oppressed and marginalised compared to a straight white cis dude struggling to have two full meals a day (or more often at home, where my family is lower-upper class and I have working class friends whose lives are much tougher than mine). It doesn't take away from the continuing problems of racism/sexism/homophobia etc, but class privilege is one of the bigger ones that's often ignored, and it needs more attention in addition to rather than in replacement of the others.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:14 am

SJWs emphasize racial/gender stuff and ignore class, brocialists emphasize class and ignore racial/gender stuff... ffs guys. Get it together. Can't leftists agree that both are important? What about "race, gender, and class intersect to create differing layers of oppression" is so difficult for people to get?

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:25 am

Because humans are self-centered and primarily care about their own problems.

Plus the question of who gets to speak - people who are socially marginalised and dirt-poor generally aren't the ones who can afford to be activists, and those who try would have a hard time getting heard or rallying support. Whereas the public is more likely to listen to straight white men of varying class status and rich people of varying backgrounds.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:13 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Your comments are always welcomed Liszt.

My preliminary investigations have uncovered that there are two competing usages of the term. Some anti-sjw liberals and right-wingers have tried to use the term to refer to the sjw or so-called "regressive" left. But, there are some lefties and liberals who have been using the term to refer to lefties who prioritize class/capitalism over civil rights, and end up saying and doing a lot of racist/sexist things in the process(like Bernie bros and others). I think some have used the term alt-left because of this racism/sexism...which isn't really as vitriolic as it is on the right, but often takes the form of mild apologia. Because of that, there's potential for connection between the extremes.

https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-s ... .9kwif89pf

Oh I think I finally understand what you mean after all this time. That kind of thing I see mostly on youtube comments. So not sure.

Anakin, I heard on a video somewhere a long time ago. That the three main privileges are 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Class, in that order. Your life can be determined according to those three, since we live on a white supremacy first, male second society. After those comes all the other forms of privilege like straight privilege, able body privilege, attractive privilege , etc. I wish I could remember where I heard that.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:24 pm

I don't think SJWs ignore class. I think generic liberals do because they don't give a damn about socialism. And I used to think all these categories were equally important, and that every intersection must be accounted for. I mean...I still do, but I now think that "brocialists" who ignore race/gender/civil rights are worse than SJWs who ignore class(which I really don't see...maybe because the SJWs I know don't ignore class). That is, if we were forced to play oppression olympics and choose between one(as these elections have forced us to), we should work to defeat racism/sexism/hate. Mainly because of how hate is used to manipulate voting...and because racism is just too insidious. And there's a very intimate difference between being treated as less than because of your actual body...your sex/skin color....your natural/unchangeable state, and being treated as less than because you lack material. I think the former just really encapsulates/represents a certain type of hate more than the latter...and that needs to be wiped out of government. Which, I think, will make fair material redistribution more likely...partly because it challenges a fundamental idea that some humans are just naturally more deserving of material wealth or comfort than others.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:13 am

And there's a very intimate difference between being treated as less than because of your actual body...your sex/skin color....your natural/unchangeable state, and being treated as less than because you lack material.

Yeah, definitely. Culturally speaking we have so many books and movies about poor whites, and there's that understanding that any white person could have been in that situation, which enables a level of empathy that's absent when it comes to someone who looks or is very different. If a poor white person cleans up well, they'd be able to move casually through society without acquaintances knowing of their poverty, but that's a matter of passing privilege.

which I really don't see...maybe because the SJWs I know don't ignore class

I think RL activists are more likely to pay attention to class. Most of those I consider SJWs are teenagers and college kids on Tumblr, which aren't the most aware people out there.

It might be more of an education thing - the way that a lot of online social justice especially makes use of very academic language. It's not accessible to the average person who doesn't know what terms like intersectionality or appropriation or gender performativity or privilege (in that context) mean, let alone have the time or ability to read thousands of words of academic articles on the subject. So it could be very intimidating for other marginalised people and would-be allies to join in, either because they don't want to look ignorant, or from of fear of offending someone and being criticised for their language - especially if they're not native English speakers. It took me a long time and a lot of reading to catch up enough to stop inadvertently using offensive terms when I first ventured online, even when just sharing my own experiences, and I'd think about how most of the local trans activists here would be torn apart by the SJWs because they keep using 'transgender' as a noun. It was a very stifling atmosphere, and I still get very wary of self-declared 'safe spaces' because from experience they had so many specific rules around conduct that people were constantly afraid of breaking them. You can't relax and actually feel safe. Three of my good friends left the online LGBT community altogether because they couldn't take it. But back then I had nowhere else to turn to for help, and that sucked a lot.

I think it's most prevalent in LGBT social justice spaces because a lot of those originated on college campuses; racial activism tends to be more community based, with more understanding around the class issues surrounding 'correct' language. Some activists started writing about this problem a few years back, and I think things have improved since because there seems to be less language-policing going around and a greater forgiveness of minor mistakes. (Except on Tumblr, which is still full of angry teenagers screaming at each other.) There's been attempts to move to calling in rather than calling out, especially within marginalised communities, and I like that. I've been finding it strangely refreshing to see people say problematic things and not be instantly yelled at in dozens of comments, where instead people educate them on why what they said was wrong, or just let it slide if it's not a big thing. There's less of a pressure to be perfect, and I wish I had that when I was younger.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:03 pm

Yeah, definitely. Culturally speaking we have so many books and movies about poor whites, and there's that understanding that any white person could have been in that situation, which enables a level of empathy that's absent when it comes to someone who looks or is very different. If a poor white person cleans up well, they'd be able to move casually through society without acquaintances knowing of their poverty, but that's a matter of passing privilege.

And this difference, between being treated as less because of material versus because of body, is exactly why poor and/or working class whites make irrational, anti-solidarity voting decisions that go against their own interests.

https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/cassiu ... .jitvftd07

While looking into all this shit, I coincidentally ran into this article than mentions Cassius Clay(Not Ali, but the original).

And, yeah, there are definitely classism issues in academic SJW spaces. There's an inherent problem because the only people with the time, education, and language to discuss these issues in a certain way must have a certain level of class privilege in the first place. Glad to hear tumblr is growing up. Though, I always thought the issues people had with tumblr were exaggerated.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:21 pm

And, Liszt, I'm sorry to say that I lost a little respect for our girl Abby Martin in the last few months. She's a little bit wacko. I used to overlook the fact that she had been a 9/11 truther, because I assumed she had outgrown it...but she has still has the type of mind that is uncritical when it comes to certain types of conspiratorial thinking. I don't think she's a clearheaded person.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:22 pm

I don't know much about Abby Martin. I've always been suspicious of her motives ever since she resigned from RT. She seems a bit like controlled opposition.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:32 am

I kind of knew she is a bit dishonest and exaggerates her point of view and I told ogl about it since episode 3 (I think) of the empire files. Where she talked about military spending in the US. So all her facts need to be fact checked because she is a propagandist. But she has never denied that she is a propagandist so I think that at least she is honest about that.

Haven't seen any from her in the past month, or even more, i think Marxism was the last thing I read/saw from her sInce I've been busy with all my stuff, just her report about Ecuador's oil spill (haven't finished yet) and Rafael correa which I thought were good. I also don't read articles like that anymore. I'm mainly more involved with what the activists here write and do which is more relevant to me and actually leads to an impact, tiny ones but is something especially in a country like mine. So I am more into that now.

She is also equating Trump with Hills which is a bit annoying. What made you think she is wacko?

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:39 am

If only 9-11 lunacy was the only conspiracy theory nonsense to which Abby Martin subscribed:

The benefits of water fluoridation have probably been overstated, but that is no excuse for outright lying and intentional deception. Dental fluorosis due to water fluoridation rarely, if ever, exceeds the mild range, meaning a child's teeth may show areas that are visibly whiter than the rest of the tooth. There is zero credible evidence that moderate to severe fluorosis is linked to water fluoridation; it is most likely linked to excess fluoride that is naturally occurring. Fluoride is poison? Yes, it is and so is almost every other mineral in excessive amounts but many we can't live without in small doses. This conspiracy theory halfwit also conveniently leaves out the fact that the involvement of the aluminum industry in U.S. water fluoridation was part of a two-step process - 1) to assure that areas with little to no fluoride occurring naturally in drinking water had their water fluoridated to the MINIMUM recommended levels to reduce tooth decay in children and 2) to identify areas with excessive levels of fluoride so that steps could be taken to REMOVE the excess or secure a safer source of drinking water. As is the case with almost all conspiracy theorists, Abby Martin's facts are carefully selected so that she only mentions those facts that support her narrative while intentionally ignoring all other relevant facts because otherwise she has no story. I oppose corporatocracy as much as anyone, but Abby Martin is a lunatic and nothing is accomplished by giving serious consideration to the lunatic fringe.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:48 am

They are not overstated. Is actually a good thing.

Fluoride pre natal pills are bs though. Fluoride rarely passes the intrauterine membrane making it irrelevant. You are just overdosing the mom for no real reason and it's usually pediatricians that know very little about it who do it.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:49 pm

I only really know Abby from a few RT episodes and the Empire Files series. I appreciate her passion for holding US empire accountable, and attempting to give voice to those who have been harmed by the US(I also liked that we shared a hatred for Sam Harris)...but she is the type to assign deeply nefarious motivations/planning behind oppressive systems when human greed and error are enough to account for how the system is maintained. People that think like her prefer the former because it's more interesting/exciting. And I think that difference is why they are more likely to uncritically consider insane conspiracies and narratives. They don't understand how a system can have a life of it's own...bigger than every person involved. It's too complicated and boring to look at it that way...the more simplistic and exciting narrative is preferred. I'm not saying it's impossible that deeply nefarious minds, rubbing their hands together as they plot world domination, are behind certain things...but I prefer the more boring explanations, first, before we jump to those conclusions.

I'm also wary of leftists who claim both Clinton and Trump are equally terrible choices, yet aim 99 percent of their criticisms at Clinton. She has such hatred for Clinton that she is acting like these right-wing idiots that are grasping at straws over the wikileaks releases. Things like taking phrases out of context that support their narrative, and acting like everyone's worst fears have been indisputably confirmed, but when you take a closer look it turns out to be nothing. I was done with her when she made some comments after the second debate about Hilary fear-mongering about Russia interfering with US elections...and she said US has interfered with all kinds of elections. 1) Just because the US has done such things, doesn't mean Americans should then have no issue with Russia possibly doing it to us 2) Abby criticizes others for using emotional-manipulation tactics, but leftist nuts like her use the similar scare tactics to get people to take their wacky conspiracies seriously. She's just all over the place with her hatred on America. Either we should take these allegations seriously or not. Don't say..."well, you guys do it too", then turn around and say it's just fear-mongering anyway...then use the same tactics when it supports your narrative.

I've also become more wary of people who love to stand against something, but don't seem to really stand for anything. It's a difficult distinction to make(and is sometimes a petty, irrelevant distinction), but I'm starting to see it as an important one sometimes.

Anyway, so Abby is no longer my wife. I would probably have realized she was a bit nutty earlier...if I hadn't been so...um...distracted. I've replaced her with this beautiful lunatic:

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:54 pm

I would probably have realized she was a bit nutty earlier..

Didn't I discuss the whole military budget bullshit thing with you too? Telling you she was exaggerating and outright lying. It was like on episode 3 or 4. One of the earliest. Or did you ignore me because you were "distracted"?

On the Correa interview, when she asks about who he thinks should win and he said "Clinton." she did a face like "Wtf are you talking about? Clinton is more interventionist!! YOU SHOULD FEAR CLINTON MORE." And Correa was like "Umm.. no, Abby. You know nothing." And she kind of wanted him to condemn her or to be more anti-american. But he replied extremely well and you could see her biting her tongue for a moment. It was a good moment.

I wish Correa was my president.

But I never saw her on RT except the Cuba episodes, which were also propagada, so didn't know about the fluoride.

The thing is, I always saw her as a propagandist so that is why, maybe, I don't find it shocking she says crazy shit. Because to me she always has, I'm still going to watch some of her stuff, like the Ecuador oil spill and stuff like that, because at least, she is giving voice to people like that and that kind of fight is so dangerous and heartbreaking, that to see someone like her, at least putting some light on people who are losing their environment and health to extraction points, gives me some kind of comfort that at least there is someone recording evidence, that these things are happening. Because we certainly can't voice out against that over here. Like for example the water campaign, which was advertised and promoted by my page, the two community leaders got murdered a day after the protest, is just so helpless. So my activists won't go down that route fully, is just too damn dangerous.

I apologize in advance for feeling empathy for those villages who are affected by foreign corporative extraction points.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:46 pm

I'd rather have someone too uncritically open to conspiratorial thinking than someone reflexively opposed to it. People pick and choose which conspiracies are worthy of being believed.

Is there anyone out there you two like and whom you don't consider a propagandist?

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:17 pm

Well, if the choice is only between being uncritically open vs being reflexively opposed...I guess I prefer the latter. The distinction i make is the difference between grounded consideration of conspiracies versus when they go too far and start sounding unhinged. White supremacy is a type of conspiracy, but there are reasonable ways to make sense of it...some folks prefer bizarre narratives to explain it because I suspect it brings a grander sense meaning to it all.

I like Arthur Chu.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:58 pm

You're dead to me.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:13 pm

We'll all be dead when Killary starts nuclear war with Russia.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:24 pm

Now you're getting it!

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:38 am

I googled Arthur Chu and found this.

http://www.reaxxion.com/8403/anti-gamer ... -sex-fiend

Glad to hear tumblr is growing up. Though, I always thought the issues people had with tumblr were exaggerated.

Re: the growing up, I meant more the social justice blogosphere. Tumblr hasn't grown up. Tumblr still sucks.

It gets worse every time I return, partly because it's populated by literal 12-14 year olds who start ranting about how their parents are oppressing them with adult privilege whenever they tell them to clean their rooms, or that since they're triggered by penguins because their rapist loved penguins (fair enough), everyone should put trigger warnings for penguins (nope), or calling people ugly whores because they said something racist, or that people need to check their human privilege because some of them identify as animals or robots or stars. Or romanticising suicide and self-harm, saying that such people are tragic angels too good for this world and one day you'll find a boy who'll kiss your scars and heal them with his tears, or that if you're gay or straight you're dumb and being oppressive, why do you insist on judging people by their sex, or calling for boycotts for a community event that was ableist because it wasn't on the ground floor and people in wheelchairs who might want to attend wouldn't be able to get up the stairs, or actually saying things like "my gender is dragon!" or "my gender ~changes with the seasons and the phases of the moon~", which might be adorable and creative if not for how that's somehow become one of the most common representations of the trans movement and a catalyst for extreme mockery. Plus their general habit of reacting to everything with no sense of nuance and disproportionate anger - disproportionate in that minor transgressions get the same amount of rage as major ones, and an inability to distinguish well-meaning but unfortunate choice of words from malicious harm.

tl;dr I hate teenagers. Tumblr is everything I hate about teenagers.

EDIT: ...someone actually did post trigger warnings for penguins as a result. http://leeandtomstolemyheart.tumblr.com ... arning-for

It breaks my heart to see all those kind souls trying so hard to make others comfortable by acceding to those requests, be it putting trigger warnings for everything or memorising 100 different sets of non-binary gender pronouns, and beating themselves up as bad allies or bad people when they fail to accomplish what's just not humanly possible or reasonable to do. It's an express ride to compassion fatigue where they end up jaded and cynical and decide they're done with the whole mess, and then they go off to join the MRAs or something.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:19 am

Anakin McFly wrote:partly because it's populated by literal 12-14 year olds who start ranting about how their parents are oppressing them with adult privilege whenever they tell them to clean their rooms

I'm sorry, I keep trying to read the rest of your post, but I can't, because every time I reach this sentence I collapse into a giggling fit.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:50 am

here are examples

there's this wonderful quote I keep seeing going around:

“when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

and I would just like to say:

- adults who think parents hitting children is discipline but children hitting parents is the height of intolerable disrespect
- adults who think children should obey every order they're given and if they feel comfortable arguing or negotiating that means they're “taking control" and “making demands"
- adults who think smartphones and cars are necessities of life for themselves but that any teenager who wants a smartphone or a car is “entitled"
- adults who interrupt children all the time but yell at children when they interrupt adults
- adults who act like lowering the voting age is going to cheapen their vote somehow
- adults who complain about having to share public spaces with children
#ageism #adultism #adult privilege #youth rights

http://dragon-in-a-fez.tumblr.com/post/ ... eing-going

also this https://humanities.asu.edu/adult-privilege-checklist

"I am not legally allowed to vote, even though government makes decisions about me and people like me."

"If I am routinely yelled at, criticized, and belittled in my own home, this might not generally be recognised as abusive behaviour."

"I am often forced to eat foods I do not like."

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:58 am

Anakin, I'm not even sure which side you're taking here. At least two of the things in your post should be criminal offenses and at least four more are signs of pathetic parenting. There are, however, good reasons for not allowing children to vote. This is just all over the place.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am

The lists are mostly a mix of criminal offenses and things that happen for good reason. Neither are examples of privilege. It's not adult privilege that children aren't allowed to drive or vote or eat ice-cream for every meal, and it's also not adult privilege that adults sometimes beat up children.

EDIT: I realise that "If I am routinely yelled at, criticized, and belittled in my own home, this might not generally be recognised as abusive behaviour." was a poor example. If it's a matter of parents scolding their kids rather than letting them do whatever they want (which is what I had in mind), I wouldn't consider that abuse, but if it's on the level of actual abuse it's a different matter.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:14 am

EDIT: I realise that "If I am routinely yelled at, criticized, and belittled in my own home, this might not generally be recognised as abusive behaviour." was a poor example. If it's a matter of parents scolding their kids rather than letting them do whatever they want (which is what I had in mind), I wouldn't consider that abuse, but if it's on the level of actual abuse it's a different matter.

Okay, but the first example in your previous post is:

adults who think parents hitting children is discipline but children hitting parents is the height of intolerable disrespect

When a 35 year old man can strike a 12 year old child repeatedly with a belt and call it discipline and every other adult who knows that family laughs at the idea that this is abuse, but then when that same 12 year old takes his own belt and decides he's finally had enough and strikes back and the adults, rather than seeing it as retaliation and self-defense, get upset that the 12 year old would dare do such a thing and the 35 year old calls the police and has the 12 year old sent to a juvenile detention center for six months < That is most definitely an example of adult privilege. I could give dozens more examples but I am way too sensitive to this topic and I'm going to have to take a few xanax now just from thinking about it.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:48 am

That's abuse. I admit that when I first read that example I was thinking of spanking, smacks on the palm and light caning, because that's the sort of discipline my brother and I received from my parents when we were younger. In our case it didn't resemble abuse at all - I could tell that it gave them no joy to hurt me, and they'd often hug us after it. Almost everyone I know was disciplined in the same way because it's the cultural norm here (they do the same at schools for serious offences), but I realise that's not always the case elsewhere. I'm sorry for the insensitive assumption, and for what you had to go through.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:54 am

An adult striking a child or intentionally inflicting any kind of pain on a child is abuse. The fact that children grow up being conditioned to this abuse and refuse to even recognize that they were abused < this needs to stop whether it takes place in the U.S., Singapore or wherever.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:39 am

From a family law website (bolds mine):

"Many factors will be considered by child welfare agencies who are investigating allegations of abuse. The child's age, size and general health, and whether the child has developmental or other disabilities will be considered. Any time that the "punishment" leaves bruises, welts, scars or open wounds is cause for alarm. If an object is used for the spanking, its characteristics and type will be considered. Even if the "spanking" is done with an open hand, if it is done for an extended duration or repeatedly, or with such force that the child is left with marks, bruises or broken skin, the agency will likely be concerned and may reach conclude that the parent has abused the child."

http://family-law.lawyers.com/child-abu ... abuse.html

I've been very fortunate to have parents who genuinely loved and cared for me, and I honestly bear no psychological scars or trauma from the occasional smack. This isn't the case for some of my friends whose parents would violently beat them for any wrongdoing (or for no reason at all). It would trivialise their pain for me to say I was also abused, even if mildly so, because they were worlds apart. I was hurt by my parents in other ways that did leave lasting trauma (primarily my mother's paranoid overprotectiveness and growing up with homophobia prior to me coming out, after which they started changing a lot of their beliefs), so this isn't a matter of believing my parents can do no wrong.

Post by **Gendo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:32 pm

Ooh, have we finally gotten around to discussing spanking?!

Post by **aels** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:13 pm

I said Chx's name three times in a mirror. That's how you get a topic raised.

Post by **aels** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:21 pm

My two pennyworth: I was smacked infrequently as a child and while I don't believe it did any lasting emotional damage (although who can say?), I believe it is entirely wrong in principle to physically chastise a child, no matter how hard you do it. If you wouldn't hit your spouse or your colleague as punishment, you particularly should not hit small humans with an incomplete sense of morality and no ability to advocate for themselves. I'm not going to go full Chx and say that anyone who spanks their children is a morally empty shitbag but I think it is hugely ill-advised and there is good reason to believe it is not good for child development.

Post by **Gendo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:55 pm

Other arguments against spanking aside, I don't understand the argument of "if you wouldn't punish your spouse that way, you shouldn't punish a child that way". Would you apply that same logic to any other form of child discipline? You wouldn't send your spouse to their room, or take away their phone privileges, or not let them have dessert, etc.

Post by **aels** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:11 pm

It's a fair point, I suppose my point is that in any other context (barring self-defence), hitting someone without their consent is recognised as assault and it's bizarre to legitimise assault against children because... they're children? Maybe I should compare it to punishing a pet instead - you can send your dog to the garage but you can't hit your dog because what the fuck.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:02 pm

CashRules wrote:When a 35 year old man can strike a 12 year old child repeatedly with a belt and call it discipline and every other adult who knows that family laughs at the idea that this is abuse, but then when that same 12 year old takes his own belt and decides he's finally had enough and strikes back and the adults, rather than seeing it as retaliation and self-defense, get upset that the 12 year old would dare do such a thing and the 35 year old calls the police and has the 12 year old sent to a juvenile detention center for six months < That is most definitely an example of adult privilege. I could give dozens more examples but I am way too sensitive to this topic and I'm going to have to take a few xanax now just from thinking about it.

We should have been best friends all along.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:28 am

What Gendo said. I agree with the other arguments, although I don't think "hitting someone without their consent is recognised as assault" applies in the case of (reasonable) punishment, any more than prisons should be abolished on the basis that locking someone up in a room would be recognised as abuse. There's a difference between hitting as punishment (where the person knew beforehand that if they did this bad thing they would be hit), vs hitting as unasked for assault.

If I ever have children I probably wouldn't hit them for the reasons aels laid out, but when done infrequently and in a responsible manner I wouldn't consider it abuse, because a parent lightly smacking a child on the bum for telling lies is very, very different from a parent regularly whipping their child with a belt. It's the equating of the two that bothers me, not the view that it may be better not to physically punish your child.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:56 am

No one is equating the two simply be describing them both as assault. Both violent rape and unwanted touching would fall under sexual assault; saying that doesn't mean I'm equating the two.

Why is it trivializing to state that you were abused simply because it, to you, wasn't "as bad" as what others went through? Simply growing up in an unloving indifferent home is a form of emotional abuse which often damages kids for life; would it be "trivializing" to accept that simply because other kids go through worse?

Where does this logic end? Can Muslims or Mormons or whatever who say they face discrimination/oppression in America be accused of "trivializing" discrimination/oppression simply because other groups have gone through far worse? This logic is nonsense.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:47 am

I don't consider what I went through to be abuse not because it wasn't 'as bad' (I agree that logic is nonsense), but because the motivations and intent behind them were completely different. My parents honestly thought that methods of physical discipline were what was best for a child, and did it believing they had my best interests at heart. I'm certain they wouldn't have if they had believed otherwise. They did not take pleasure in hurting me. It's not comparable to cases of abuse where the parent either uses the child as a catharsis for their anger, or derives cruel delight in mistreating the child.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:08 am

How is abuse dependent upon the motivations and intent of the perpetrator? Again, as DA tried to point out, saying A is not comparable to B doesn't excuse the fact that A is still bad. Punching somebody in the face is rarely going to be as bad as stabbing someone in the throat but punching someone in the face is still an act of violence. This is a textbook example of the fallacy of relative privation.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:18 am

My two cents, my parents believe in spanking, and I was spanked with a wooden paddle for misbehaving. It wasn't frequent, and I was never bruised or seriously injured, and I don't think my parents enjoyed it, although my mom has quite a temper so she might have gotten some cathartic release out of it, but I was a little messed up by it. I had frequent nightmares involving my mom in a fit of rage well into my late twenties, and I cut off all contact with my family for 7 or 8 years because I couldn't bear to face them (there were numerous reasons for this, but I think at least some of my deteriorated relationship with my mom could involve her spanking me).

My wife and I agree that we will not spank our son, and we don't want to leave him with my parents because they think spanking is not only acceptable, it's necessary. DA has mentioned studies that show conclusively that spanking should be considered abuse, and I'd really like to see them so I can share them with my folks.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:27 am

CashRules wrote:Again, as Cassius tried to point out, saying A is not comparable to B doesn't excuse the fact that A is still bad.

I knew it! Cassius and DA are the same person.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 am

Damnit! Okay, that would actually make sense.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:32 am

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx/

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:45 am

CashRules wrote:http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx/

Thanks! Any other data you all have could help, because I don't expect my parents to be easily swayed, but I also don't want to be afraid to leave my son in the care of his grandparents, and I'm not very good at finding things on the internet.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:49 am

How is abuse dependent upon the motivations and intent of the perpetrator?

My understanding of abuse is that it has to be intentional. Harm is different, and is not dependent upon motivations or intent. A person may cause harm without it being abuse.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:04 am

This is a topic older generations (most people near my age and damn near everybody much older) will probably never truly grasp because the idea that you need to hit a child to make them behave is just too ingrained into their way of thinking. I never left my pet lesbian with my parents while she was growing up and they were happy that way, especially after I told them I wouldn't bother bringing her by at all if their first reaction was going to be trying to put her to work. This actually happened, she was ten, children are free labor, that's the purpose of their existence. My dad died with 14 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren (5 of whom were old enough to make the connection that their great-grandfather was their mother's or father's father and therefore a close relative) and none of them really ever knew him. He asked when pet lesbian's birthday was several times while she was growing up and her birthday is January 1st. I never understood how in the blue hell anybody could forget their granddaughter's birthday is the damn first day of the year. Her youngest brother's birthday happens to be January 2nd but I never bothered wasting time seeing how much that would confuse him.