June

no one said ocd makes you want to touch children. that is, in fact, not one of the symptoms. intrusive thoughts, however, are. don't try to turn this around on me man

I said that POCD is not a real condition and that paedophiles are subhumans. Your response to that was to falsely equate having OCD to being a paedophile ("i don't think i should have to explain to a 'marxist' why ocd doesn't make someone 'subhuman'") and claim that "getting unpleasant intrusive thoughts" (i.e. wanting to rape children) was "a symptom of ocd." That is ableism and paedophilia apologia. You are a paedophile ally, and I'm going to make that fact known to everybody.

lmao i don’t think i should have to explain to a “marxist” why ocd doesn’t make someone “subhuman”.

Paedophilia is not a symptom of OCD. You are equating having OCD to being a paedophile. THAT is ableist, and it also makes you a defender of paedophilia. And being a paedophile (or a defender thereof) does in fact make you a subhuman.

even if they get unpleasant intrusive thoughts,

"Unpleasant intrusive thoughts" like wanting to rape children? YOU CALL THAT "UNPLEASANT INTRUSIVE THOUGHTS"?!

i think you should explain why you feel it’s acceptable to use that sort of strasserist thinking

Paedophilia is one of the most vile crimes there is. If you do something that inhumane, you cease to be a person. If you aren't a person, you don't have rights. And when a non-person's mere existence is a threat to the safety of others, it must be exterminated. When a dog intentionally hurts a child, we put it down. And a dog isn't even particularly intelligent. What do you think should happen to a far more sentient being guilty of an even more heinous crime?

i also don’t think it’s even a little bit permissible to misgender someone or accuse them of being “fake trans” just because they happen to be a little hitler, as most americans are. it doesn’t help anyone, trans or palestinian, to do that sort of bigotry. i don’t think i should have to explain to a self-described “marxist” that trans people are human beings, with all the good and bad that entails

I agree, and BadEmpanada likely does too. He wasn't accusing anyone in particular. On the rare occasion that he does misgender somebody, he corrects himself

i still don't see why you have to defend his other reactionary takes.

As Marxists we uphold the truth, and the truth is that the evidence you provided doesn't even remotely indicate that BE is a reactionary. Now, your turn. Do you want to explain to everybody why you think that "paedophilic obsessive-compulsive disorder" is a real condition and anyone who disagrees with you is ableist? Do you want to explain why acknowledging the existence of pretendians is bigoted? Or do you recognise that he was correct and you'll apologise for slander of a public figure?

of course first world trade unions can act in support of imperialism. saying “don’t join a union” is a reactionary response to a very real fact.

In the context of 21st-century imperialist countries, it really isn't. In Lenin's time when only a minority of workers in the first world were labour aristocrats, you'd have a point, but that's not the case anymore. It's no longer the case where the leadership of the unions were reactionary but the membership by-and-large weren't. Also, BadEmpanada explicitly says in his video (which has since been renamed to "DON'T Just Join a Union" to clarify the fact that he's arguing that unions aren't an end in and of themselves and that the primary focus must be on fighting imperialism):

I'm not saying "Don't join any union". I'm saying at least think more about the decision. Be conscious about it and be very careful about what you do within a union because you are ultimately human, you are ultimately gonna follow the carrot on the stick; and the carrot on the stick (when you're in a union in the first world) is often "support imperialism". There may be genuine anti-imperialist unions where you are that are way more involved in broader politics—in broader global geopolitics—than other unions are. Look into that maybe. Who knows? At least think about this stuff. You know, stop focusing your politics around unionism, around organised labour in your own country—which is just unionism, really. Start focusing more on imperialism.

Of course, you didn't watch the video, did you?

as for your first and second responses, just because you’re the same type of reactionary as badempanada doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t understand what he’s saying. communists can read and understand subtext just as well as whatever it is you are

Exactly. You read between the lines and then you ignore the lines.

None of those are reactionary statements.

The claim he makes in the first image (that some people falsely claim to be part of a marginalised group for the perceived social cred and then use said marginalised status as a cudgel whenever they're attacked) is objectively true. Have you ever heard of a Pretendian?

In the second image, BadEmpanada was talking about "POCD", or "paedophilic obsessive-compulsive disorder", which one of his detractors claimed to have. It is not a real diagnosis, nor should we allow would-be child rapists to portray their subhumanity as a simple mental disorder which they don't have any responsibility over. The only treatment for paedophilia is a bullet to the head; and I am genuinely horrified that people in the comments of that post are actually running defence for those lowlives.

And the argument he makes about First World trade unions supporting imperialism is likewise correct. All one needs to do to prove this is look at the history of the labour movement in the West during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

you’re talking about him like conservatives used to talk about donald trump back when anyone cared about his transgressions.

The difference is that, in BadEmpanada's case, it's actually true. When you actually examine the essence of what he is saying as I have done instead of just looking at a thumbnail, soyfacing, and parading around as if what he is saying is self-evidently wrong like a thoughtless imbecile; it is progressive.

he literally tweeted something about how trans people aren't real like two weeks ago

That's not what he said. He acknowledges that trans men are men, trans women are women, and nonbinary people are valid. He just doesn't believe in "faunagender" identities like "puppygender" because you literally cannot be a dog, and he's suggested (without pointing to anyone in particular) that a lot of First Worlders pretend to be part of the trans community or some other marginalised group because of the perceived social cred, using their status as a bludgeon against anyone who criticises them

he's australian

He condemns First Worlders because they (by-and-large) support imperialism. He does not support imperialism. There is no contradiction here. It's telling that, rather than actually engaging with his beliefs about First Worlders, the best response y'all can come up with is the playground insult of "I know you are but what am I"

As he [Stalin] read, he made notes in red, blue and green pencils, underlining sections that interested him or numbering points that he felt were important. Sometimes he was effusive, noting: “yes-yes”, “agreed”, ‘“good”, “spot on”, “that’s right”. Sometimes he expressed disdain, scribbling: “ha ha”, “gibberish”, ‘“nonsense”, “rubbish”, “scumbag”, “scoundrels” and “piss off”. He became extremely irritated whenever he came across grammatical or spelling mistakes, and would correct errors with his red pencil.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/feb/16/stalins-library-by-geoffrey-roberts-review-the-marks-of-a-leader

No they aren't for the reasons I explained above. They by and large don't extract surplus value, so can't be bourgeois. Peasants and artisans literally pre-date the bourgeoisie by thousands of years.

yes it is. the proletariat sell their labor power, he sells the product of his labor which is the petite-bourgeois relation.

No it isn't. You fundamentally misunderstand what the term "petite bourgeois" means. Peasants and artisans also sell the product of their labour rather than their labour power, yet they're not considered petite bourgeois. You know why? Because petite bourgeoisie literally means "small capitalists". The petite bourgeoisie are wealthy enough to extract surplus value from others (thus making them bourgeois); but not wealthy enough to subsist entirely off of that surplus (separating them from the haute bourgeoisie, or the big capitalists). BadEmpanada does not hire anyone, so he is not bourgeois. If he's not bourgeois, then he cannot be petite bourgeois.

he's a petite-bourgois

No he isn't. He is a YouTuber who makes all of his content by himself. That's not petite bourgeois, nor would him being petite bourgeois or white or a settler invalidate a single thing he has ever said

who has been overtly ableist and transphobic on multiple occasions

When?

I love how this is the immediate reaction of anyone whenever I or someone else criticizes Badempanada. This is going to be insulting, I’m sorry, but this is the same tactic of those rightist conservatives who just complain that “you’re a snowflake who gets offended by everything. Why do you need to be coddled you sissy?” Based off of nothing else but just me complaining he’s an insufferable douche (at best) to everyone, not just first worlders and not just rightists.

Yes because your argument literally boils down to "he's an arsehole" (which, 99% of the time, is warranted). When he's an arsehole to supposed "left-wingers", it's usually because they aren't actually acting like left-wingers (e.g. operating within the framework of Jewish exceptionalism or attacking anyone who does anything to meaningfully oppose imperialism) or they're spreading defamatory lies about him (e.g. that he's a bigot or a paedophile)

I’m not complaining about how he makes westerners feel bad, I’m complaining that people put up with him for metaphysical reasons relating to that. Like Feynmann, he does stuff we wouldn’t put up with normally, but since he does it tow be quirky and different compared to his colleagues in the space, it’s alright.

I tolerate him because, in the grand scheme of things, he is an overwhelmingly positive influence. He's done more to actually educate people about colonialism and imperialism and to put Zionists in their place than the rest of the online left combined. I don't care if you personally find him harsh or rude or dismissive of other people's feelings. Sometimes we have to work with people who we don't like. That's just the way the world works. Not everyone is going to want to be a part of your little hugbox

I would much rather have a mature discussion about anti-imperialism, but every week or so he says something else that sounds super cool and unlimited genocide on the first world or whatever, but that people who have actually read theory have to take time deconstructing or responding to(his recent thing on unions is just one in a long string of issues). So in the end I just get sick of him and his entire persona.

What did he say about first world unions that was wrong?

Why? Because he doesn't coddle the feelings of First Worlders who, with very little exception, support, participate in, and directly benefit from imperialism?