(current/future) climate refugees make xenophobia and anti-immigration more appealing - they could be preparing for it

and I feel this dynamic is bad for the same reasons gendering is. It is imposing an identity onto someone - forcing someone to have their (perceived) identity include their relationship to gender and fuckability (or maybe beauty depending on the respect of the posters)

i've been seeing this more over that past few weeks than usual, but I even see other anarchists participate in perpetuating a cultural standard of primarily defining people by how much they want to fuck them. I haven't seen much push back to this and I think that needs to change

at the very least it is bad imo that famous people are primarily talked about in their relationship to beauty rather than their relationship to their talent/what they do. they get sexualised or praised for their beauty more than being able to act/sing/etc well

and it's not really escapable - famous people (primarily women) are always primarily defined by their relationship to beauty standards on the internet. which clearly has knock on effects to relationships between people (men to women) irl - which this internet dynamic came from

but things like "would" or "here me out" to me also seem kinda bad as they are making the relationship someone has to beauty standards to be at the front of their identity. Do these people actually want to be commented on in this way? most of them haven't given an explicit yes at the very least

The logic in this essay is the main part of my reasoning for wanting to use it/its or they/them (but i dont like these too for similar and different reasons) pronouns for everyone, or just using the name of the individual. So criticisms of my perspective would be appreciated!

I am defs not advocating anything resembling being nice to your oppressors. When someone harms you, you have 3 options, 1. call them out for it, 2. let the harm continue/do nothing, and 3. self defence. When option 1 doesn't work do sth else

a personal attack rooted in what they are saying is not something i take any issue with. Personal attacks on other things is what I have issues with and that is the most common way people attack each other, which is probably irrelevant to this conversation between me and you

I also wouldn't class calling someone cruel as an adhom as calling them cruel is a critique of their moral character. Like it is effectively saying sth like "I disagree with your moral outlook as it lacks compassion" even if it is said as "you're a cruel pos"

i agree that personal attacks are violent and can be thought of as self defence - but the way they work as self defence is the issue i have with them. They are effectively trying to change people's behaviour without changing their beliefs, making them dependent on others to do the thinking for them

Like imagine if every anarchist on the internet started just calling people bad faith rather than insulting people acting in this way. It would be a sizeable amount of people creating a culture of stigmatization around acting in bad faith pushing towards a cultural change towards accountabiltiy imo

I feel ad hom attacks are seen as useful as they appeal to standards set by our oppressive society (specifically where some people are seen as lesser than others), and that ad hom attacks would seem out of place in an anarchist culture

My logic is kinda like mean ends unity regarding creating a culture that shuns behaviours of anti-accountability. In such a culture, ad hom attacks on others would not be seen as credible attacks, while calling someone bad faith would be - so I act in ways that create and reinforce this standard