This is, once again, a clear demonstration of the machinations of state power corrupting people. These people hold left wing views, but they can do nothing with them because they requirements of government forbit them to. We don't need better politicians, we need to overcome this system.

I'm glad she's saying it now, don't get me wrong. But we needed this years ago when this was first starting up. In fact, trans people have been saying this forever. Trans feminism has focused on the crossovers between cis and trans women forever.

Democracy as a concept must centre this shared making of reality, this collective generation and inscription of moral and proceedural concerns into systems that escape individual control. Democracy is supposed to give humanity agency over systems.

This quote is key. Democracy is supposed to be the ways in which we inscribe our shared reality onto the meta-systems that we use to control wider human society. Where do we see this happening today? I argue we simply do not, and in representative systems it is made impossible.

It's really important to not kid ourselves into thinking that our communicative work can do anything to change the world. It is important to remember that democracy itself does not hold sway over the world system, nor over our own national systems.

What she explains so clearly, is that images and ideas and cultural shifts did not and cannot drive changes in foreign policy in our current system. They can give ammunition to those who seek to end it, but shifts are driven by other trends, those more central to power relations.

And women also are forced to and trained to repress it, so self reported wellness may not be an accurate measure? Measuring the impacts of sexual assault like this seems silly for this reason. We know it does extreme harm, let's just start from that point instead of relativising it.

Ok I now see others have pointed out that point, so perhaps I'll explain the second point in relation to sexual assault. I'm not sure how they measured it, but women experience sexual assault in society to a terrifying degree, and so the entire scale of measurement probably reflects that.

If I'm understanding correctly, and I may not be, the graph shows effect sizes not direction. So it may be that breakfast has a positive impact, while sexual assault a negative one. This is intelligible to me given the degree to which women downplay and are forced to survive sexual assault. Maybe?

Where do they say that? It's always something stupid like that, but I'd be interested to see how they justify that given that I'm pretty sure I've read strong arguments for concentrating people into urban centres and all that (no idea the validity of it recently, just a thought).

Me peripherally being made aware of wild discourse happening somewhere on the internet.

The reason why not is it allows you to justify whatever behaviour you want because the ends justify the means. Malm is a dangerous authoritarian, who thinks anything the left does is justified as long a it works because it's in service of a goal he likes. It's inconsistent and genuinely dangerous.

The reason why not is it allows you to justify whatever behaviour you want because the ends justify the means. Malm is a dangerous authoritarian, who thinks anything the left does is justified as long a it works because it's in service of a goal he likes. It's inconsistent and genuinely dangerous.