Seanchaí (she/her)

A chairdre! I’m Seanchaí (shawn-a-key), a trans lesbian currently living on Turtle Island. (she/her)

  • 0 Posts
  • 253 Comments
Joined 7M ago
cake
Cake day: May 21, 2022

help-circle
rss

I don’t know why you’re saying this to me. I’m not making an argument one way or the other about Katyn, as I said already.

I was just letting you know how completely and abjectly wrong your statements about that website were. It did cite sources, and one of them being in first person isn’t proof of credibility or lack thereof.

That was the sum total of my comment.

I truly don’t care to read what you wrote about Katyn because I’m not interested in the topic one way or the other. Just thought that you, as a person engaged in the conversation, should know that your dismissal of the website was predicated on a complete misunderstanding of the very website you were dismissing. As someone who does seem to be interested in engaging in this topic, you should at least engage based on the realities of what people are linking to you instead of your ill-informed preconceptions. If you’d like to explore whether the sources linked are accurate or reputable, that’s fine, but you should at least read them before making false claims.

You should also cut the whole “use your brain” and “just think” rhetoric, I promise you you’re not intellectually superior and being condescending in your comments isn’t going to win you anything.


Did you actually read this?

“Sites [sic] no sources”

Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers’ Press, Inc., c1946, p. 99

Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 360

Nekrich and Heller. Utopia in Power. New York: Summit Books, c1986, p. 404

New York Times, June 29, 1945 p. 2

Lucas and Ukas. Trans. and Ed. Secret Documents. Toronto, Canada: Northstar Compass, 1996, p. 197-198

And there’s more. The page is literally a collection of excerpts, nothing here is written by a single person. It is entirely a compilation of sources.

Only the first one is written in first person, as it is a personal accounting of events. And the fact that something is “written in first person” is not proof that it is inferior, that’s a nonsense western academic convention that ignores lived experience as a credible source of information.

I’m not making a statement about Katyn one way or another, but it’s pretty ridiculous for you to cast away an entire website of sources without having read literally any of it, then claiming that it’s all some personal blog with no sources, thus proving that you haven’t read any of it.


While I agree with Ratette and Kanzler that queer people shouldn’t be expected to argue for their very existence and basic respect, and that this is reason enough to ban someone, I would like to offer you a bit more of a Marxist take on the situation.

This thread was asking about a specific social relation: the oppression of queer people in Russia.

The comments then, were a place for people to discuss the historical and material conditions that led to this social relation.

This particular user’s tantrum showed anger at the very existence of the discussion. If someone is unwilling to engage with (or more, is angry at the very existence of) a discussion about the material and historical conditions that give rise to social relations, I struggle to see what a Marxist-Leninist forum has to offer them, and more, what they have to offer a Marxist-Leninist forum.

Lemmygrad is a confederation of communities bound together by the social contract stipulated in the main site’s rules. In the course of one comment, despite knowing full well it would get them banned, this user engaged in sectarianism, bigotry, disrespect, and promoted and fueled the very division they were railing against.

Such behaviour is a direct contradiction with the social dynamics of the agreed-upon forum rules, and as such, the most prudent course to resolve the contradiction was to ban the user, and thus reinforce the social contract that we all must agree upon when creating accounts here.

If the user were to resolve some of their own internal contradictions (such as promoting division by arguing against division, claiming themself as an ML while refusing discussions about historical and material conditions leading to social relations, promoting capitalist ideals of cisheteronormative family structures in a misguided attempt at subsuming such capitalist structures within communism which could lead only to continued class disparity and thus never true communism) they would be more than welcome to return.

In fact, nothing stops them from making a new account right now, and engaging once more, provided they have, at the least, resolved enough of their internal contradictions to have learned to keep such thoughts to themself or else face a repeat ban.


I won’t speak of the eugenics angle, though I think there is a reason to feel uncomfortable for that, as its usage in eugenics stems from a dismissing of the humanity of various ethnic groups and the establishment of several “humanoid” species.

From a linguistic perspective, using “oid” is actually a negation of the author’s intent in most use cases here on lemmygrad.

“Oid” is used to describe a semblance. An android is like a man (andro), but is not one. A factoid is presented as a fact, but is not true (as per the term coined by Norman Mailer). A spheroid, as you mentioned, is like a sphere, but is not actually spherical. An asteroid is star-like, but is not a star.

The most common use cases of “oid” on the site are “westoid” and “angloid.”

Linguistically, calling someone a “westoid” would mean like a westerner, but not from the west.

An “angloid” would be like an anglo, but not actually anglo.

And in this case, a “crackeroid” would be like a cracker, but not a cracker.

However, when people say “angloid,” “westoid,” and now “crackeroid,” they mean, in fact, an actual westerner, anglo, and cracker. So the “oid” suffix is an incorrect addition to the term.


This is a bit of a misunderstanding of the sovereignty movement. Quebec does have a constitution (though it is comprised of several sets of regulatory legislation rather than one specific document, largely because the consolidation of the Quebec provisions of the Constitution Act, the Charter of the French Language, the National Assembly Act, the Executive Act and the fundamental Quebecois rights Act would be done only in the event of actual secession).

The part about the currency: not so important, plenty of territories have seceded while using the currency of their former nations, and they could easily switch to a franco-dollar. They also have the resources necessary for being an independent nation.

The sovereignty movement is not right-wing (though plenty of anti-fed, anti-immigration right-wing nationalists do support sovereignty. The Communist Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois (socdem) and Quebec solidaire (socdem) all support Quebecois sovereignty.

The FLQ was a Marxist-Leninist organisation that attempted to spur Quebec into revolutionary secession, and was met with military crackdown. This would happen in any secession, even electoral, as Quebec is integral to energy (hydro-Quebec sells energy to other provinces and is second only to Ontario for energy production), fresh water, and forestry (second only to BC) for the entire country. The St Lawrence is also a key transportation corridor.

Canada has a long history of military intervention at home, and uses the RCMP to violently stamp out any form of anti-fed or anti-corporate protesting or land defense. It’s normalised in this country for the liberals (NDP, Conservative or Liberal, doesn’t matter) to support violent military raids on Indigenous land defenders on their own unceded territories, and to this day there is a general sentiment that the imposition of martial law in the face of the FLQ was a reasonable and necessary step. Canadians are fiercely “proud” of their massive landmass and believe that (even in territory that their own laws claim they have no jurisdiction over) they have every right to violently enforce their laws. They would never peacefully accept a secession of such a large and central landmass.

The only reason not to support the Quebec sovereignty movement is because, as you said, there is a strong lack of involving Indigenous landback and sovereignty. The Bloc is the largest pro-sovereign party and would be vehemently opposed to working alongside Indigenous people to secure independence.

Unfortunately, right-wing nationalists have a large amount of political sway in Quebec, and have done a good job of convincing people that racist anti-immigration policies are in the best interests of securing a French bulwark against the federal “melting pot” that they see as a tactic to stamp out Quebecois culture. In no surprise to anyone who knows French history, Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim legislation are at a peak in Quebec, which is, I think, why the sovereign movement as a whole gets painted as reactionary.

However, it’s important to note that most of the right-wing parties in Quebec (and the ones who most support the racist legislation) are not in favour of sovereignty, but rather the support the “nation within a nation” model that currently exists. This allows them to continue to operate their corporations with special exemptions while not dealing with internal tariffs from participating in the larger Canadian economy.

Uniting landback with a Quebecois sovereignty movement largely favoured by the left-wing would serve a dual-purpose of weakening the Canadian superstructure, and allowing a meaningful step towards Indigenous sovereignty as well. Under the federal government, landback will continue to be nothing more than meaningless platitudes, yearly apologies, and colonisers giving land acknowledgements about how grateful they are to continue to exploit their genocidal acquisitions. A smaller, separate government in Quebec would be easier for Indigenous people to contend with.

This raises, of course, the issue of further borderisation, which is an anti-Indigenous and racist practise that separates Indigenous people from their families, their traditions, and their lands, by imposing colonial borders between Mexico, the US, and Canada. All this to say, is that a sovereign Quebec would only be a stop-gap measure in what needs to be a widespread dismantling of colonial federal governments and a true landback.


But we already have a word for traitors: traitor.

Our goal is always and above everything else to foster class consciousness through education. When our rhetoric is not precise, when it is riddled with insults and slurs and dehumanising language, we threaten our own grounding in reaching the workers who would otherwise join us.

We must seek at all times to explain, in precise and honest language, why the people we oppose are in the wrong, and why we are the ones who offer reprieve and solidarity to the masses. Hostility and vitriol will not win hearts. There’s no need to seek out some label to paint our opposition as less-than. A thorough explaining of the cruelty and violence of the system they uphold is condemnation enough.

That is not to say that anger is wrong, or that pacifism in the face of violent repression is the answer. But to gain the trust of the people, to present ourselves as the human option, it is essential to remember how deeply communism relies on a principle of love for others. There is righteousness in fighting for love. There is contemptibility in fighting for hatred.


Yes! This is why I suggested Border and Rule, it is an exploration of that very idea you’re coming to.

Migration is not about movement, it is inherently about immobility, about creating a class of super-exploited workers in the Global South that have no ability to leave. It’s the direct successor to land bondage.

Border policing is an imperial war tactic.

“War veterans, in fact, comprise one-third of Border Patrol agents. This is not a coincidence; there is a homology to domestic and foreign conquest. The formation of the US–Mexico border and immigration as a race-making regime cannot be analyzed outside the reciprocal processes of empire building and genocidal violence.”

This is most keenly felt through leveraging IMF and World Bank debt traps to enforce the creation of EPZs in exploited nations. EPZs are Export Processing Zones, extranational areas that are exempt from the local labour laws (and local ecological protection laws), allowing capitalist hyperexploitation to flourish. On top of abysmal working conditions, EPZs are notorious for union-busting and anti-organisation tactics including literally murdering people or burning down entire factories of workers.

To top it all off, this is a form of racialised gender violence, as “Women make up 90 percent of the millions of exploited workers in these zones worldwide” and “for every new male worker arriving, there are three times as many new women workers, their unfree labor solidifying capitalism”.



That’s the point I’m making. You theoretically could. But no one does. And because it is only used for a specific racialised group, it is therefor a racialised term.

There’s something to be said about a bunch of people (very few of them latinx themselves) arguing online for why they should be allowed to call some latinx people worms.


It’s a problem with the theme.

Solar (the theme you’re using) and vapor-wave dark (the theme I’m using) are the only two with this issue. The font is there, it’s just barely lighter than the drop-down box so it’s hard to see. You can still click them though. On vapor-wave dark there’s the added bonus that a highlight makes them readable if you hover over them. Solar doesn’t have that.


Thank you, I’m a writer and educator so being able to explain myself is something I work quite a lot on.

It’s difficult, especially for second-language English speakers, to be taken in good faith online, where people are already looking for the worst possible interpretation of what you’re saying.

For instance, I can tell from the point you made (and while I agree they aren’t particularly comparable situations) that you were saying what a woman wears is not a factor in whether or not she will be assaulted. You’re correct on that, and it is, in fact, the opposite of assault apologia.

People are looking for excuses to misinterpret each other and create breakdowns in communication. It can be incredibly overwhelming to try to communicate in such a situation, and often it leaves you needing to expend extra energy in checking and double-checking what you’ve said in the hopes you’ll be able to notice the ways it may be misunderstood and fix them before you send it.

I think you’re doing well, though <3


Lotta people on here have no problem using the term, because they consider it to be a political slur and not a racial one. However, if a white person is a traitor to the revolution, that term is not used. It’s only ever leveraged against a specific ethnic group (latinx people who are anti-revolutionary). Considering there is a specific racialised component to the slur, whether its origins are political or not, it is a racial slur.

White people especially should not be using a slur that has a racialised component; there is something incredibly distasteful about calling latinx people “worms.” It’s dehumanising and it brings to mind that, due to the fact the slur is only leveraged against latinx people (Cuban people especially), it is synonymous, in a way, with calling someone a “race traitor” for not being revolutionary.

Attacking someone’s class character is one thing; using a slur that has a very specific racialised origin (especially when you’re not of that origin yourself) has, whether intended or not, a racist subtext.


Patriarchy is when people voluntarily do something to help feed their community and foster neighbourhood relations.

Liberation is when women are scolded by strangers and insulted for choosing to do something they want to do.


Okay I’ll be sure to tell the Palestinian Society at our next rally that they’re delusional and not real Marxists, but that Shrimpy on the Internet says they get a pass because they were raised that way and presumably that means they’re too stupid to know better.

Get the fuck over yourself, Marxism is not when you alienate every fucking worker who has religion, whether they converted or not. And it’s pretty disgusting to act like converting to Islam is bad because Islam is bad, but somehow being raised in it you get a “pass” because I guess people raised Islam are just not expected to know better? Fuck off with that.

There’s nothing inherently incompatible with Marxism and religion, so long as the religion isn’t used to oppress others or as an escape from seeking worldly resolutions to worldly contradictions.

And yeah, being from outside the imperial core does not give you a pass on perpetuating imperialist bullshit like blanket statements about how Muslim people can’t be real Marxists or that someone is fucking delusional for believing in Allah. Fuck outta here with that oppressive bullshit, do some reading.


Can you see the inconsistency in claiming you are anti-imperialist and desire a classless society (communism) but then you perpetuate the imperial racist class discrimination of faith practitioners (particularly Muslims)?

China? has Marxist religious practitioners. Cuba? Marxist religious practitioners. The USSR? Marxist religious practitioners.

Marx himself called religion a reflection of the conditions of society, and his criticism for it was when focus on the otherworldly led to ignoring the conditions of the worldly.

If you think that Marxism requires a complete discrimination against the spirituality and faith of others then you’re just a different flavour of oppressor.


Yeah, you’re absolutely right, islamaphobia is a giant red flag, as is someone calling other people delusional for their faiths.


If it’s not that she’s a Muslim then why is that something you decided to bring up three times as your main proof that she’s not trustworthy?

“delusional enough to convert into it” is pretty fucking clearly islamaphobia, and no amount of “materialism” makes that less true pal.


I wonder if there’s a word for someone who discounts everything a person says simply because they are Muslim. Hmmmmmmm