A single hand pie filled with brown sits in the center, slowly crumbling to bits

Sure but I’ve gotta ask: why not write 7 paragraphs of run-on sentences like a true proletarian!?

The only surefire form of privacy is to not store information digitally in the first place, ideally not at all.

But sometimes we do have information that needs storing. And in that case privacy requires that you control the data at rest and encrypt the data at transit. All free cloud services can snoop your data if they really want to. If you value privacy, minimize your use of them.

You should assume that every social network is ride with spying, both for corporate and governmental purposes. For example, the main reason TikTok is currently getting threatened with a banning is because they have a less fed-friendly algorithm, so large masses of people are actually seeing the horrors in Gaza. If you watch the nightly news, you won’t see that content. If you go to YouTube, you won’t see that content. You also will barely see it on Reddit (which literally hired someone that worked at the CIA to be their community manager person lol). Do your best to dissociate your online activity from your personal identity. Use a good VPN that you pay for with cash or a proxy system like a voucher that can’t be traced back to you. Use burner email accounts. Etc etc.

You will understand why better when you take a look at who they say this to and who they don’t.

This is not something that generally happens to white people speaking some French in the US. It does not raise the ire of this psychology. On the other hand, they love to target brown people speaking Spanish (almost exclusively, in fact). There is, naturally, spillover where white people speaking Spanish or brown people speaking Hindi would get targeted.

As others noted, and as these examples suggest, this is an instance of xenophobia and racism. Language is being used as a proxy, really, and provides a way for these people to unleash the frustrations they have been taught, societally, to have against them. Generally speaking, these are people that will call any brown person that speaks Spanish a “Mexican” regardless of their actual place of birth, where they were raised, or ethnic heritage.

But this is just a surfacr-level analysis. The next question is why they are taught to target people with xenophobia and racism. Why are there institutions of white supremacy? Why are their institutions of anti-immigrant sentiment? How are they materially reinforced? Who gains and who loses?

At a deeper level, these social systems are maintained because they are effective forms of marginalization. In the United States, racial marginalization was honed in the context of the creation and maintenance of chattel slavery, beginning, more or less, as a reaction to the multi-racial Bacon’s Rebellion. In response, the ruling class introduced racially discriminatory policies so that the rebelling groups were divided by race, with black people receiving the worst treatment and the white people (the label being invented for the purposes of these kinds of policies) being told they would receive a better deal (though it was only marginally so and they were still massively mistreated). This same basic play had been repeated and built upon for hundreds of years in the United States. It was used to maintain chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and modern anti-blackness. It was used to prevent Chinese immigrant laborers from becoming full citizens and becoming a stronger political influence in Western states.

It was and is used to maintain the labor underclass of the United States, which also brings us to xenophobia more specifically. The United States functions by ensuring there is a large pool of exploitable labor in the form of undocumented immigrants. It does this at the behest of the ruling class - the owners of businesses - who have much more power to dictate wages and working conditions when it comes to this labor underclass. They make more money and have more control, basically. But this pissed off and pisses off the labor over class, as they have lost these jobs (or sometimes are merely told they lost them even if they never worked them). To deflect blame away from the ruling class for imposing these working conditions wages, the ruling class instead drives focus against the labor underclass itself, as if working that job for poor pay and bad conditions their fault. This cudgel should remind you of Bacon’s Rebellion again: it divides up workers so that rather than struggle together they fight amongst themselves on the basis of race or national origin. The business owners are pleased, having a docile workforce to exploit.

So while racism and xenophobia are themselves horrific and what is behind the "Speak English!’ crowd, it is really just an expression of the society created by this system that, by its very nature , pits workers against business owners while giving business owners outsized power (they are the ruling class, after all).

Another important element to this is imperialism and how imperialist countries carefully control immigration (it used to be basically open borders not that long ago). But I’ll leave that for any follow-up questions you might have.

Bowman is pro-Israel, lol. He has opted to give them basically every material support that he’s had in front of him. DSA had an internal rift over his Zionism where the right wing of DSA wanted to support him regardless.

This is a good lesson for all vaguely left folks interested in electoralism. Even if you try to triangulate to seem less “extreme” or fly under the radar, the capitalist party apparatus will reject you and come for you eventually. You won’t even be able to point to your legacy later, as your cowardice will be the only thing in the rearview mirror. There will be no groups built from your leadership or longer-term wins from your efforts. Instead, you will have supported the genocidal status quo and harmed your own supposed base. So don’t play pretend or capitulate or triangulate. Lead and agitate and organize.

You think the Marcos government returned from partial alignment to the full alignment with the previous neocolonial regime under the thumb of the primary global superpower that already occupies their country and has done so for over 100 years because “China scary”?

lmao

Thank you for the reflection and acknowledgement! That is a rare and good thing and a very good thing to cultivate. Nobody is perfect and I also try to engage in this as early and often as possible. Eventually, it becomes something that is preemptive rather than reactive and you won’t have to look back on things very often and say, “I don’t like what I said” (something I’ve had to do many times myself!). I also think that online environments cultivate a maximalist approach to personal agitation even when it is a situation where that shouldn’t need to happen, so cultivating reflection like this helps us remain socially adept here and elsewhere. We also lose resolution of expression in this format.

In terms of resources, left perspectives on abolition are actually about as old as a discernable left re: capitalism. Early works took sex work being negative for granted and extended their analysis of marriage to include this commodification of (usually women’s) bodies, synthesizing an early form of feminism. Marxist analysis - from Marx and Engels themselves - of the family under capitalism describes the core of this idea of commodification and of women as a marginalized subclass whose marginalization serves a function within capitalism and is therefore maintained by it (and has mores that were invented by it, despite the pretense that “traditional” views towards interpersonal relationships are ancient). It is actually quite revealing to look into even just how relationships among European serfs worked differently.

So there are a few ways to begin approaching this issue and diving down into it further and further. If you prefer to build “from the ground up”, which is better for understanding what these positions are referring to because they use Marxist and anarchist language, you’d want to start with Marx, Engels, Goldman, etc as background and then look at their writings on women, families, and prostitution. For example, Engels’ On The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, while flawed, will lay out some key concepts and the angle from which this was and largely still is approached. Reading Das Kapital is challenging but would provide this with very useful context. Instead of going straight into Das Kapital, for most people I would recommend a companion guide like that written by Heinrich, you could read it side-by-side with any Marxist work and it would be helpful. The ideas expressed there constantly reappear under Marxist feminism (and not all “Marxists”, to their shame, have been feminists!). You will find the same core logic presented in later socialist projects. There are many examples, but Sankara was particularly outspoken about this and women’s liberation more generally, and seeing how it embeds in the conditions of Burkina Faso are revealing.

From the angle of a “liberal-friendly” introduction: there is a somewhat liberal but still materially-embedded abolition organization that lays out the core ideas borrowed from this left tradition here: www.demandabolition.org. As an NGO it suffers from tying one hand behind its back in terms of taking action and hiding any semblance of radicalism, but it has many of the ideas and presents them in a “liberal-friendly” way.

From the angle of a modern article summarizing the position (though citing no sources): https://medium.com/@ihla/on-the-necessity-of-sex-trade-abolition-as-a-revolutionary-marxist-line-2516bb9516db

From an anarchist perspective: Emma Goldman’s On The Traffic of Women. Anarchists who cite this work will often go in the same direction. Unfortunately this is less common in the West in modern times, as the label of anarchism itself has often become diluted into a vulgar horizontalism that doesn’t know its real theoretical and historical grounding. But there are still real anarchists out there that do actually read and know these things and will cite these works.

You’re making an argument against sex work so assuming you expect others to be convinced by it, I think it’s fair to expect a rational argument.

I gave a very basic intro to the idea that there are leftist feminist abolitionists out there. I’m not trying to convice you, I simply offer a path forward for those with curiosity and good faith. You expect things I never offered and brought a combative approach, despite clearly being very new to this topic. Unfortunately, you blame me for this state is things, even though you won’t even attempt to process the basic mind-expanding example I originally provided and have reminded you of twice. It’s hard to move forward when the simple things are turned into roadblocks.

It doesn’t have to be mathematical, but at least rational and honest so I don’t think it’s absurd to point out what I see as a dishonest persuasive technique.

There is nothing I’ve said that’s irrational or dishonest. I just took note that you’re appealing to logical fallacies where it simply makes no sense to attempt the application. You are guaranteed to find some “error in reasoning” if you rely so heavily on this category error, funnily enough, even though no actual errors have been made. It is, very obviously, just defensive behavior. Appeal to emotion? For what thesis? I have no thesis, I merely introduced a basic concept to you.

Given the discussion seems to have devolved now into accusations, I don’t think there’s much more to be gained for either of us. From my perspective, your assertion that sex work is a form of rape is not justified

I didn’t say sex work was a form of rape. I think I’ve explained the related concept 3, 4 times?

simply asserted and then you use that as a basis on which to argue.

Yes this is what introducing people to concepts looks like. You describe the idea and how it relates to some other ones. As I have mentioned 3 times now, you are free to educate yourself in this topic at your leisure. I have never projected the pretense that I was interested in demonstrating the veracity of the entire position from first principles.

A broader appeal to the nature of work under capitalism is simply a non sequitur.

It’s literally just a comparison to get you thinking and questioning. It does not contain the structure of an argument. How could it be a non sequitur? These terms do actually mean things, you know.

You have to show that the impact is similar if you want to make a valid argument here as to why they should be considered the same.

I haven’t done any equating, so your depiction of my claims is false. You’re trying to find flaws in a series of positions you’ve now imagined. I again invite you to go and actually read about this topic rather than pretend I’ve presented a formal argument. At the moment, I believe I’m still trying to get you to acknowledge that forced labor and rape is something you’d think of as worse than just forced labor. Unfortunately you are trying to fight rather than acknowledge the obvious. Or maybe you don’t think it’s worse? Who knows. Can’t seem to get a straight answer.

If you have no interest in doing so, that’s completely fair but you can’t expect anyone to be convinced.

I expect curious people to read up about it or ask questions. I have been fairly plain in presenting this as a very basic description of a position held by leftist sex trade abolitionists. Not a “I’m going to argue the case to everyone” kind of situation. You can tell, in part, because I keep suggesting you self-educate and because I didn’t make arguments.

Just because I do not agree with you, does not mean I don’t take what you say seriously or am refusing to engage with it.

That’s true. It’s the refusing to engage with it that is refusing to engage with it. We’re still stuck on acknowledging the basic meaning of the first thing I said. And discussing a series of invented positions and misidentified logical fallacies. Confusions multiply from thin air while the basics go ignored.

Your efforts would be better served showing that abolishing sex work would reduce harm, rather than attacking me.

I think I’ve explained fairly well why your current behavior is the main barrier. I’ll note that you didn’t address the vast majority of my previous response. Ask yourself why that is.

You can just answer this simple question yourself: is it more harmful to have a system of forced labor or to have a system or forced labor and rape?

If you say it’s the second one you will now have an idea for why it is singled out rather than lumped in with all labor.

Re: things like “appeal to emotion”, that is absurd. This is social theory, not modus tollens. It will all be about impacts in humans, systems, harms, basic empathy, and challenging yourself. There is no equation or deduction. The mere idea is philosophically outdated by at least several thousand years.

You are free to read the literature on this topic or to take this seriously enough to actually engage with it. So far we haven’t been able to get past the very first thing I said, a simple comparison, seemingly stuck on the difference between a comparison and equation. I think you’re perfectly capable of understanding it and then moving forward. But I’m not going to force knowledge into a combative person’s head. You’d need to pay me for that.

I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you were saying so I’m sorry that I have. When I said you suggested imagining the difference I was referring to the statement you made asking me if I thought sex work was uniquely harmful compared to other work. I interpreted that as you asking me to imagine what harm a sex worker might experience. Are you able to clarify that? It seemed to be the core of your argument from what I could tell.

I’m asking you, by analogy, to consider the difference between a forced laborer and a forced laborer that is also subject to rape. Think of it as part of the same coercive system. Historically, it has been.

The leftist feminist consideration looks at work under capitalism as its own coercive entity. Not identical to slavery, but still having its own coercive nature. If one must work to live and one’s sexuality is to be sold (and in a heavily gendered way), it is different than online working to live. It is a commodification not just of one’s labor, not just of the body, but also one’s sexuality and with downstream detriments due to its embedding in a patriarchal society. These things are not separable. “Men can also be X” also does not change this calculus, it just provides another facet that differentially impacts a minority.

The commodification of bodies for sex is also the driver of human trafficking.

The issue I have with your last argument which I articulated is that it does not apply to sex work, but all work. Should we abolish all work given your reasoning or is there a specific reason why sex work should be targeted?

The left anti-capitalist position is the end of capitalism itself. It is not simply a reform within the capitalist system that leaves the fundamental driver of this social context intact. Left advocates of abolition may offer reformist policies but they understand them in this other context.

Hopefully this plus the prior answer addresses the question. There is also plenty of abolitionist literature from communist, anarchist, and syncretic perspectives.

The trafficking aspect is not an issue with legalisation of sex work. It exists whether sex work is legal or not.

Under this framework, trafficking emerges from the aforementioned commodification. Legalization is considered expansionist under this framing, it opens up the labor pool and normalizes this commodification, even telling kids and young adults that this is a profession to pursue rather than something harmful to them. A larger sex trade. More brothels. More “massage” parlors.

Abolitionists tend to advocate for keeping the behavior of “John’s” illegal, making the industry itself illegal while not punishing prostitutes.

To me this is akin to saying people are trafficked for slave labour therefore we should abolish labour. Unless I am missing something, it doesn’t seem follow.

Per this framework we should abolish the capitalist labor system. Abolishing the patriarchal sex industry is something that can be achieved as part of this movement. Same as child labor was abolished (although not for everyone). We punish the employer not the child. We know that the right position is to provide economic support to families and children, not to legalize sending children to the abattoir where we know undocumented immigrant children work.

This is not an argument against sex work, this is an argument against all work under capitalism. Fair play, but not what we are discussing here.

I have, in fact, pointed out the core argument for the abolition of sex work made by leftist feminist organizations.

If you want to make an argument against sex work you need to provide a justification for selecting it specifically over other work.

I already did. I made a comparison that you’ve avoided thinking about. You declared it an invalid comparison based on absolutely nothing, but it isn’t.

I don’t think you have really done that other than to suggest imagining the toll sex work must take on an individual.

Who said I was imagining? You seem to be taking a lot of liberty with my thoughts.

Do you have any way to show that it is particularly harmful or any other reason why it should be singled out?

I already did and already pointed out the trafficking aspect. You seem to be interested in avoiding what I’ve laid out. Perhaps you should do some self-criticism as to why you are uninterested in approaching this in good faith.

The current Marcos government is a shift towards the United States and is gladly offering up The Philippines, a neocolony of the United States, as a forward base for the “containment” of China. This includes a reversal in both policy and propaganda when it comes to the South China Sea.

Democrats say: unlimited ethnic cleansing

Yeah of course I oppose those things but I don’t see it as comparable at all. Something being included as an option in the job market is very different from forcing people to do it.

Under most anti-capitalist conceptions it is well understood that you must either work or die, and there is naturally an element of coercion. Wage slavery isn’t just hyperbole. Capitalism drives down wages to bare subsistence and even below. The exceptions tend to be in imperialist countries that provide a relatively higher income by extracting from other countries’ workers and resources. But even then we all know you have to work or die, in the end. You are always threatened with the example of the difficult lives of the unhoused. They help remind you of how little you have to back you up. Housing is the first to go. Or maybe health.

This naturally makes it comparable, as there is the element of coercion. We are left to argue about the extent of the coercion.

A very serious topic worthy of discussion in it’s own right but I don’t see how that’s related. If anything this would be a good reason to legalise and regulate wouldn’t it?

I invite you to familiarize yourself with how trafficking works. Just guessing in the dark does not do the people affected justice.

EDIT: also important to note that people of any gender can work in the sex trade.

Cool well leftist feminist organizations still often the abolitionist perspective I mentioned. This is because women are far more impacted by the sex trade and other organizations tend to have bad positions or no positions at all because they are ignorant. Let me know when other organizations have as developed of a political like on this, as I know of none other than ruling communist parties that were influenced by the women within them.

Employees and employers are always in a war of information. Employers work together with their crony class traitors (like HR) to come up with plans to increase profits and mitigate losses based on what they can glean about employees. They are asking you all these questions as a form of intelligence gathering. Maybe they’re trying to get a handle on where they most need to begin recruiting. Maybe they’re trying to get a handle on why people are leaving. Maybe they’re using the information gathering privilege to intimidate people. Maybe it’s something else.

Either way, it’s rarely in an employee’s interest to provide accurate information like this to an employer. If they were actually worried about people leaving they could just raise salaries and figure out if there are specific working conditions to improve like getting rid of abusive managers or changing work responsibilities. But those aren’t the questions they’re asking.

The only question is how to avoud questions or lie. Avoiding is best. “I hadn’t really thought of that. What is your opinion?” is a good default. Or, “have other people been talking about that?” If they try to force an answer, just lie. You see yourself there in 15 years, whatever.

This may be a sign that they feel weak in their labor market, though. I think this is actually a good time to ask for a raise and promotion. It’s also a good time to start looking for other jobs, as a big exodus of people that they’re not handling appropriately means everyone’s working conditions are probably going to get worse. They seem to be in complete petty tyrant mode.

Think of how you look at it when the coercion is overt.

I’m sure we both oppose forced labo rand rape (overtly coerced labor, overtly coerced sexual contact). Do you think one is more harmful than the other and takes a unique psychological toll? Edit: what about for a person who endures both?

There are some subtleties due to the different kinds of content that count as porn, but hopefully this explains why many left feminist organizations advocate for the abolition of the sex trade.

In addition, remember that one in seven people in the sex trade in the US are trafficked.

Sorry sweaty, that’s whataboutism. What time is it in Moscow?

Oh, you’re a Trotskyist? What are you thoughts on transitional programs?

Channeling the racists that the Banderites love so much.

lmao