Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.

I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.

In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)

So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.

Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now

I see yes. Thanks for giving more context.

I do think they should actively start talking about candidates for sure yes. So I very much agree with her on this.

I mean I can kinda see the point of using kings instead of oligarchy. But using oligarchy is a bigger stab at the billionaires in the room as well so I still think it captures a bigger part of the problem.

Otherwise I think I‘m down for her saying that she wants to get stuff done but I mean is she? I‘m totally uninformed but being highly ignorant it reads a bit like a whatever statement. Like you mentioning it is also just a performative act so yeah shrug

I do think the Dems have a problem in establishing words and totally losing the plot or narrative control over their words. Woke totally slipped into an insult and I don‘t think that was an unavoidable thing. I think if Dems would go for more public social policies they would get a lot of the votes back they have been shedding but I think their oligarchic interests are in their way. Like Harris could’ve just campaigned on getting SOME change done and I think more people could’ve warmed up to her but that particular ship has sailed.

Thanks for linking the article and centring the discussion.

Yes I get that. I‘m looking forward to reading the comment and article you have linked and thanks for the insightful perspective. I hope you have a lovely day

interesting, thanks for writing it down like this.

If you allow the random question, is this persistence of class between communes also the reason you shifted from anarchism to Marxism? Because I think you do make a persuasive point and would like to know what changed your trajectory/mind.

He is flirting with the alt-right. And some movements „dabble“ in nazi memorabilia to mention the most flagrant connections to it or his failure to even outright criticize Hitler.

I know that the word Nazi is really triggering but its also true in this case. He is not said to be a Nazi himself but flirting with them. Which is factual and not really discrediting per se.

If the only argument here is: Nazis can only be German and its a historical term that cannot ever be applied to other nations I think that belies how everyone consistently uses language in a not strict academic sense and even then there are academic papers linking him to Nazism and right ideology in general.

And your other insinuation of saying that „anyone who isnt working for a more just and equal society“ would be applicable to Trump, his campaign and the things he platforms falls flat if you look at what his recurring talking points are. Sure let’s use the word Nazi less bit of course in association with Trump it gets used for very clear, explicit parallels. But I don’t think you really care about that if you try to frame everything as tiny transgressions by people who are just not „fighting for a more just and equal society“. If Nazi is too strong a word, what would you propose? And is the use of it logically a valid reason to discredit an opinion? On an open source platform talking about people who have English as a second or third language?