Ich denke viele Leute werden dir da unterschiedliches Feedback geben, wann sie es als rassistisch empfinden. Es ist aber ein sehr typischer Moment von Alltagsrassismus. Vor allem weil ich als Empfänger der Frage ja auch niemals wissen kann, ob du es „nicht abwertend“ meinst.

Alleine die Erfahrung immer in eine andere Schublade gesteckt zu werden, ist meist schon die Rassismus Erfahrung.

Ich finde die Frage in vielen Kontexten legitim, wenn klar ist das mein Gegenüber wirklich an mir als Person interessiert ist und nicht versucht mich schnell zuzuordnen.

Leider fühlen sich halt auch viele PoCs (mich eingeschlossen) nicht wohl in dem Therapie Setting wenn unser Gegenüber weiß ist. Ich muss halt hoffen, dass meine Erfahrungen Ernst genommen werden und ich nicht in der Behandlung selber wieder mit ner Rassismuserfahrung konfrontiert werde. Ich denke diese Spannung sorgt auch dafür, dass je nachdem wie früh oder wie die Frage gestellt wird, es auch negativ wahrgenommen wird.

In deinem Beispiel ist es zum Beispiel real ein Dialekt, der die Frage triggert und nicht die assumption: ah andere Hautfarbe du kommst von bla. Manchmal sind es solche Kleinigkeiten an denen ich es zum Beispiel festmache ob ich die Frage komisch/weird/unangenehm finde oder ob jemand einfach interessiert ist. Aber auch PoC experience is natürlich kein monolith.

I think they are thinking of the statue of liberty because she was in the news recently that the one French politician asked for her back. But yes, totally not the same statue/person referenced

I mean yes sure couples have to communicate but relationship anarchy isn’t really about who does the dishes but if a relationship includes sharing finances, includes financially / emotionally caring for each other or if it is potentially a „purely“ sexual relationship. Or just a platonic relationship.

The anarchy is not meant in the same way as its political ideology counterpart but states that you do not adhere to established rules or hierarchies within traditional relationships.

Maybe as a relationship anarchist you want someone you only fuck from time to time but you also want to share finances but you don’t want emotional sharing. This would be an uncommon constellation that could be easier to make sense of using their concepts. You could also obviously get there with other means but likewise maybe this also generally just wouldn’t work/vibe with you - which is also fine.

I really just wanted to give people the chance to engage with potential tools to talk about their relationships differently and maybe that helps.

Either way connecting and communicating with people and partners is always complicated and you have to train it and keep the communication working. So yeah it might be more complicated but maybe thats why it might work for different folks.

I‘m not that deep in relationship anarchy and in a currently monogamous queer relationship.

I do think the difference lies in the traditionality you have touched upon in that you and your partner have a script / rough idea that has/is guiding aspects of your relationship and that relationship anarchist would want to explicitly frame/structure themselves in most of the relationships they engage in. This is more in the direction of: my romantic partner is also a partner I share finances with or plan to cohabitate with or think about offspring with etc.

I don’t think there has to be an inherent value judgment in this. Different people prefer different things so I think it always works out and either way you have to communicate with your partner in what works in your relationship. (Who does what housework, what do esch of you want out of the relationship, etc.)

I mean you can be heavily invested in a relationship as a relationship anarchist.

The anarchy part is that you do not take for granted how a relationship should be structured and that you are open to have very unique and consensually agreed upon aspects in your relationship.

If you want commitment and reliability and loyalty you can for sure ask for it and name it as something that is essential for your relationship and if they do not give it to you it might just be best to split ways.

Of course I understand that there will be people who weaponise relationship anarchy to just do whatever the fuck they want to and rationalise/justify their behaviour but I think the concept isn’t condemnable per sé. There are also people who weaponise therapy speak to gaslight and I wouldn’t want to generally talk bad about therapy.

Just wanted to give a counterpoint because I think engaging with relationship anarchy and for example looking at a smorgasbord can even help monogamous people to figure out what is important to them and what they want.

I think your comment reads quite combative.

I think with the context of the Meme, yes there are some people who call you and you just know its gonna be a huge annoying phone call that you should just avoid and text the person after because some people just wanna talk your ears off.

I dunno if we have to do the: omg millenials/gen alpha is too phone anxious thing.

And sure its called a mobile phone, but as an argument that feels somewhat pedantic nowadays. Primarily its a mobile internet connected computer nowadays I would say. I use the camera/ texting/ social media functions way more than the real phone capabilities. Maybe thats different for you but I don’t think it’s uncommon that its one of the lesser used functions.

Sure if people are too anxious to pick up the phone and it negatively impacts their life they should get help for it. I don’t think we should shame them in that case though. It feels to me like shaming depressed people when they cannot find the energy to shower, which I would similarly feel is inadequate input.

Ich hätte jetzt nicht erwartet, dass die Wirtschaftswoche einen so langen scharfen und vorwerfenden Artikel gegen Merz rausbringen würde :D

Vor allem die Vorwürfe und Verfehlungen der letzten Wochen nochmal so einzuarbeiten.

Ich denke aber auch, dass ich nicht sehe, dass Merz so gut ist im Taktieren oder generell in der Lage wirklich gute Koalitionen zu bilden geschweige denn vorausschauend zu planen oder Probleme wirklich anzugehen.

Aber das fühle ich bei der ganzen CxU schon nicht von daher ist es vielleicht auch nicht sonderlich nennenswert als Einwurf. Es werden/bleiben wilde Zeiten :(

Thanks for sharing, it really did feel like a sketch out of the movie.

I guess I would also focus on the dog and the niece when they are more approachable and not as combative and so many people in your family are changing quite profoundly

I hope you have a lovely day without phone calls!

Okay, ich hab das Spiel nicht selber gespielt. Aber ich finde den Takeaway von dem Artikel ein bisschen flach.

Klar müssen wir koalieren, um eine Brandmauer gegen rechts zu haben. Aber ich finde die Formulierung impliziert mir etwas viel, dass man als linksorientierte Person mit der Koalition unglücklich sein würde, aber dass dann ja später vielleicht bessere Zeiten kommen.

Ja klar geht es immer langsamer als man es haben will, aber ich sehe auch nicht warum man nicht kritisch sein sollte? Ich kann auch mit Leuten koalieren, die ich kritisch betrachte, ich habe momentan aber eher das Gefühl dass sich CxU sehr darauf ausruht Migration als Thema zu haben und den Aufschwung nach der Ampel zu nutzen um einfach wieder ihr „übliches“ Programm abzuspielen.

In welchem Szenario kommt es also hier auf meine Koalition an? Das Spiel impliziert und der Artikel auch dass man noch Macht hat und Sachen bewegen kann. Ich finde die Demos zeigen total klar, dass der Weg der CxU sehr sehr negativ betrachtet wird. Die CxU kann trotzdem einfach mit der AfD anbändeln und es ist egal was meine Perspektive dazu ist. Natürlich hoffe ich, dass unsere laute Stimme gegen Rechts durch Merz‘s „Dickschädel“ geht, aber mit welchem Angebot von Koalition sollten wir hier denn locken?

Sorry für den etwas unsortierten Rant, irgendwie hat mir der Artikel echt nicht zugesagt, aber danke dir fürs Teilen.

Sure,

I guess Im sorry if my phrasing made that feel very combative, which is not how I intended it. I didn‘t know it was common courtesy to tell people you block them though, so have a good one.

It sounds horrifying to me still to be honest. I dunno how his wives being hot (is that what we are talking about?) really changes that.

I just don’t see how the „success“ alleviates the self-commodification and how regimenting your whole life based on some ideas around extracting highest value sounds like a pleasant life?

But sure, if you do relationships to extract value out of it, then maybe that is a reasonable way to go at it and maybe you even get together with pretty people that makes it worth it for you. if this was me I would still ask myself what the fuck am I doing this for, but maybe thats just my existentialism talking.

Agreed especially on the comment as a showcase of „mod differences“.

I think this just rather corroborates Ada‘s statement of how there were multiple reports the mods did not follow up on and how Ada had to eventually always do it.

So even with a good faith reading I do not see how this is a problematic ban and not just a common recurring topic which this instance has always protected us from, which is the whole reason I am on this instance.

While I understand that the „modding differences“ were the reason you aimed to migrate, I as a user do not remotely see the benefits of a move when it was Ada that stepped up to do moderation. Especially if as Ada mentioned our community had reported these instances, a move would just signify a deterioration of our experience.

I have to reiterate that I have always appreciated Ada‘s decisions. The stepping up and sheltering many of us on the Reddit exodus and providing me with one of the few places nowadays I can go to and expect a civil, homely and communal experience.

I for one repeatedly have enjoyed your community management and moderation style.

I am happy and glad to know that someone as experienced and resourceful has always been committed to create, foster and defend a safe space like blahaj.

The fact that moderation specifically is cited as a reason to switch instances is worrisome to me and feels like it will not be a place for me I want to frequent and I am sad that you are being painted in a bad light here.

I thank you for your continuous good work and hope that this move at least eventually will lead to fewer bad moments for you, because you do not deserve to be treated badly with the care you are giving this community.

He is flirting with the alt-right. And some movements „dabble“ in nazi memorabilia to mention the most flagrant connections to it or his failure to even outright criticize Hitler.

I know that the word Nazi is really triggering but its also true in this case. He is not said to be a Nazi himself but flirting with them. Which is factual and not really discrediting per se.

If the only argument here is: Nazis can only be German and its a historical term that cannot ever be applied to other nations I think that belies how everyone consistently uses language in a not strict academic sense and even then there are academic papers linking him to Nazism and right ideology in general.

And your other insinuation of saying that „anyone who isnt working for a more just and equal society“ would be applicable to Trump, his campaign and the things he platforms falls flat if you look at what his recurring talking points are. Sure let’s use the word Nazi less bit of course in association with Trump it gets used for very clear, explicit parallels. But I don’t think you really care about that if you try to frame everything as tiny transgressions by people who are just not „fighting for a more just and equal society“. If Nazi is too strong a word, what would you propose? And is the use of it logically a valid reason to discredit an opinion? On an open source platform talking about people who have English as a second or third language?

In what way? As far as I know they have spoken out against TERFs and the like and are themselves not identifying as cis.

Specifically I know they have always argued for a more open and inclusive perspective of womanhood so I‘m unfamiliar on how they would be problematic.

yes I really liked it. Even the analysis/hypothesis that it really is the moment of „not getting pandered to“ that enrages that demographic. Any moment they do not feel like the target audience they take grave offense.

That‘s honestly a terribly broad question.

What are the people you are allies to telling you they want or are missing? Are you helping them in achieving what they want?

What are you doing for them besides that and do you think it is the right thing to do?

And yeah I don’t know, coming up short is a pretty loaded phrase. Some struggles we might still lose and still we have to fight regardless and relentlessly. And if you „fall short“ just try to do more, as well as the fact that we cannot all provide the same kind of support so its gonna be very personally biased either way

I honestly think that it’s totally fine to ask for citations and I also would have loved to see them. Furthermore I also really think that it was much more reasonable to ask the second person for the citation than the first one so I am in total agreement with you.

And I do really want to clarify that I was honestly just commenting on the doomy comment of: „a reflection of our times“ Because this really just felt more like an anchor effect hypothesis moment to me of being biased by the first data input however outrageous it may seem.

Even if you had casted doubt (which I again don’t think you did) that would’ve been fine and healthy I would argue. I love it when people ask for citations and then even read through them and discuss the limitations of it, I think that’s fucking awesomesauce and I’m glad people like you can read it and share their insights on it.

Long story short I was sharing another - to me more plausible - explanation of the vote distribution. Hope you have a lovely day and this kerfuffle did not discourage you from exploring and sharing the interest details of the world.

(god I should really learn to write more concise)

Maybe, but they could’ve also posted the same request for citations on the first poster but did not.

I think that really does reflect how someone can just say whatever and when challenged we are biased to only assume the second opinion as doubtful.

this is so cute, I love it thanks for sharing it!