One of the many reasons Tokyo does have those train carriages is because women are systematically discouraged from speaking up about being assaulted, even as it is happening. Even in a public place surrounded by other people. The offense was and, to an extent, still is often treated as a nuisance rather than a violent sexual crime. Empowering women who speak up about being assaulted and prosecuting sexual assault offenses is how you reduce assault rates. Make it easier for victims to speak up, and show that what happened to them will be taken seriously.

Creating women’s only carriages isn’t a solution but an affirmation that men are on some inherent level sexually abusive (therefore decreasing the seriousness with which assault is treated, and decreasing the likelihood women who speak up will receive support as “that’s just how men are”). It also, you know, only does something about one very specific kind of sexual assault. It does nothing to address sexual harassment and assault committed in any other public or private space.

I can understand feeling safety in environments free from men when men are essentially given free reign to do whatever they want to with minute amounts of offenders ever facing any kind of punishment. I also feel that simply creating women only cars doesn’t go far enough and actually in some ways enables alternative lines of justification for sexual assault if a woman isn’t in a women’s car. People can and will ask why she didn’t take the women’s car, as though it is the personal initiative of women to prevent themselves from being assaulted.

Christian Anarchy specifically has a long history dating in some ways back to the early church period. A very direct interpretation of the New Testament clearly directs one to renounce wealth inequality and to view all people as equals. Especially the beatitudes from the sermon on the mount, which literally says that the poor and persecuted are blessed and will be the ones to go to heaven. Many Christian anarchists view the violence of the state as inherently incompatible with Jesus’s command in the antithesis “to love thy enemy” and “turn the other cheek.” It is also commonly argued that nationalism is an example of idolatry, which is condemned in the ten commandments.

Jesus himself lived what can only be described as a bohemian lifestyle. He ejected the merchants from the second temple. He criticized kings and merchants. He was a willing martyr, willing to die rather than to resist violently.

All these things contribute to the long-standing traditions of Christian Anarchy. A very literal interpretation of his teachings and emulation of his way of life leads one pretty naturally to anarchy. There exist anarchist communities in many major religions.

Being religious does not mean being orthodox. And even among orthodox religious people there’s a lot of variability in beliefs. Religious people are absolutely welcome in LGBT communities, given that they aren’t bigoted towards queer people. If you are queer positive and support queer rights, then it doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are. Lots of queer people are religious as well. Queer spaces are for them too.

Love your lack of interest in learning about people with different beliefs and identities from you.

Gonna go against the grain and say that you are totally valid for wanting a space that is accepting of your faith, politics, and identity.

As an anarchist, I get being ostracized for political beliefs for sure. I myself am non-religious but have met a lot of Christian and Muslim anarchists. It’s hard finding leftist spaces that aren’t rapidly anti-religious on the best of days, let alone ones that are also lgbt positive. Wish I had easy solutions.

I run a community for trans feminine people where anyone is allowed to post regardless of their faith. I’m pretty sure most of the other lgbt spaces on blahaj.zone would be open to the kinds of discussions you’re interested in.

Christian anarchism is actually one of the oldest forms of anarchism. Many early anarchists were Christian and derived their political beliefs from gospel.

deleted by creator

This election was lost in every measurable way. She did not lose because of leftists who didn’t vote on principal. She lost because the working class overwhelmingly chose not to vote for her. Many of them voted for Trump instead. Many first-time voters voted for Trump. She thoroughly lost to him in every possible way.

It’s not punishing anyone as much as asserting our bodily autonomy, but go off. Targeting Republicans means no pressure is applied to anyone else to change society. Not every woman will participate in the strike. The effects of it have to be wide reaching.

It’s a widespread denial of the institutions behind gender relationships. Saying that the system is dangerous for women and refusing to participate in it.

I think I better explained my response in my other comment.

All very true.

I do think it’s worth mentioning that the “lesser evil” politics that she ran on has never worked for anyone, not even once? She aligned herself with several popular conservatives positions (deportation, stronger border policy, continued financial and armaments support to Israel). But conservatives had no reason to vote for her over Trump. This swath of voters who wanted what she offered does not exist. The ones who want those things want other things too, things that Trump offers them.

So her best position was being the lesser of two evils, being better than Trump but still not a progressive candidate. That political angle failed the DNC in 2016, and it failed them again. This is entirely the failure of the DNC to be a progressive party. They chose neoliberal conservatism to the bitter end and threw us all under the bus with it.

The number of leftists and muslisms who didn’t vote for Harris on principal is far lower than any amount that would have saved her. She resoundingly lost this election in every possible way. Blaming people who didn’t vote for her on principal is ridiculously misunderstanding what happened here. The majority of America is okay with bigotry. The majority is fine with violence against women and minorities. Either that or they have constructed conspiracies that Trump hasn’t actually said or done those things. Either way, they are unbothered by the things he has said and done.

I don’t understand why you believe the DNC is deserving of some measure of protection from criticism.

You seem to be a bit confused about what exactly capitalism is. Capitalism is the ideology of private ownership, specifically with regards to the means of production. It is contrasted with socialism, which is the ideology of public ownership of the means of production.

Capitalism is the ideology that allows for someone to own a factory, for example. It allows for them to possess it, in some nebulous way, and to therefore be entitled to the fruits of labor produced there. Even if they themselves did not work to produce those products. Capitalism is the ideology of private wealth accumulation and the ideology of class. It is the ideology of wealth inequality (as opposed to wealth equality where capital is shared equally among all). It is the ideology that creates markets out of supply and demand, specifically designed to collect as much capital as possible from people seeking products. Capitalism is protected by the state, which creates justifications for its existence and prevents the working class from uprising against capitalists. The state colludes with capitalists. They exchange political power for capitalists’ labor power. In this way, any party that is not explicitly anti-capitalist is necessarily pro-capitalist. To allow capitalism to exist is to protect it. In this way, capitalism is not just private ownership itself, but it is also the politics that protects such ownership and the states that choose to allow it.

Contrasted with socialism, the ideology of public ownership. Socialism is the classless ideology. Socialism is social welfare, including ideas like social assistance or UBI. Socialism allows for means of production, like factories, to be publicly and equally owned by all. It allows the fruits of labor produced in those factories to be shared by all. Like capitalism, socialism produces its own political ideologies. Socialism as a state of being requires some form of protection (much of the debate on the left can essentially be seen as “how should we protect an established state of socialism?”). As socialism is classless, and as its production is communal, it is open to encroachment by capitalists who will seek to establish private ownership and markets there. Most agree, some state or state-like entity must be established to protect the socialist society. In this way, any politics that are explicitly anti-capitalist must be socialist.

Political vigil… for genocide victims… for people murdered in a genocide… I guess having a holocaust remembrance day at work is a political act now?

You can peruse my comment history and see how often I argue against zionists and then get back to me on how well I’m doing spreading their propaganda 🙄

The zionist ideology has no relation to ancient Judaism. Aside from its constant allusions to recreating the ancient state of Israel. There is literally no connection. Trying to draw one is to imply that there has been some murderous genocidal element of Jewish people that has existed throughout history and persisted to the present date. Nothing you or anyone else defending the commenter has said makes literally any sense unless you can somehow draw a continuity between ancient Judaism and zionists. You can’t. Zionism came to fruition in the 19th century. It was a concerted colonialist project. It has literally not one single thing to do with the supposed actions of ancient Jewish people.

The commenter also was alluding to Jewish people having been responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Not that they were radical far right. Specifically that they were responsive for the death of Jesus Christ. That notion whatsoever is a literal mainstay of antisemitism. To then try and allude to something about the “jews who killed christ” that persists and is represented to this day in zionism is textbook definitional antisemitism. It’s saying that jews are murderous in some underlying inherent way. I don’t know what to tell you it’s the truth.

Now, before you accuse me of supporting Israel again, a state I literally believe should be dismantled in its entirety and who I know to be controlled by a genocidal party in a genocidal government with a genocidal military leading over a population indoctrinated to support genocide, kindly go do something else. I’m not a psyop or whatever you’re going to accuse me of being. I’m not an idiot either, I know what is and isn’t antisemitic. Criticism of the state of Israel, of the IDF, of the colonizing ideology of Zionism, none of those things are antisemitic. Trying to say that there is something inherent to Jewish people that makes them nefarious or murderous or evil? That is antisemitic. The commenter made an antisemitic comment. It was removed in like 2 minutes. It was textbook antisemitism. It was not a critique of zionism.

I guess calling ancient Jewish people murderers and then saying, “maybe nothing has changed” is totally cool to you or something?

Why did you say “jews” and not “jewish extremists” like… what are you even talking about… Who are the jewish extremists youre even talking about in the first century lmao and what do present day zionists have to do with jewish extremists from the first century besides them both being jewish??

You clearly haven’t even thought for 2 seconds about what it is that you said. Maybe you ought to when making claims about jewish people. I despise zionism, just as I despise the IDF and the state of Israel. I would never make an allusion to some connection between modern zionists and ancient jewish people. You said jews and you meant it. Get out of the anti-zionist movement for god sake.

Interesting then that you chose to link modern zionism with jews in ancient Jerusalem. Also interesting is your omission of the term zionist. No, your comment states a continuity from ancient jews to modern ones in the context of the ancient ones having murdered christ. That’s anti-semitism. Whether you will openly agree or not isn’t particularly relevant.

The Jews in Jerusalem sent him to be crucified, so maybe not all that much has changed.

The Implication in that sentence is that the jewish people were firstly responsible for the death of christ, and also that this refers to some underlying nefarious murderous aspect to jewish people that the commenter is suggesting persists to the modern day. How else would you read this comment in the context of this conversation? What else could be intended by “so maybe not all that much has changed.”

I’m very much opposed to the zionist colonial project in it’s entirety.

However, what you are espousing here is blatant anti-semitism.