What are you talking about?
Grail
joined 10 months ago
I mentioned trans people because I am trans. And because the very first Nazi book burning was of the texts from the Institute of Sex Research which concerned practices for trans healthcare. Attacking trans women was a high priority item on the Nazi agenda. And I paid attention to it, because all My articles are written from a trans perspective. People like Me have been speaking from trans perspectives for a hundred thousand years. If you have not seen discussion of trans people until recently, it is because until recently we have been silenced. I am not some cisgender person pushing a political agenda (What agenda???), I'm a person living My own truth and speaking to that truth. It's clear you have a problem with that. Perhaps it would serve you better not to explain what your problem with talking about people like Me is.
The reply contains only 12 of My own words. The rest is links and direct quotes. Information that already exists out there, and some of it has existed for a long, long time. I've grown frustrated with the continued state of affairs after a hundred years of people ignoring these criticisms. I have become aggressive and impatient. I don't think I could write something in My own words which approaches these issues without rage, without removing all that is unique in My interpretation of events. If you think a better article can be written, I invite you to write it.
Antiwar sentiment is not new, and pro-trans sentiment isn't new either.
The central purpose of Australia’s WWI centenary celebrations is to saturate the population with militarism and patriotic propaganda in preparation for new imperialist wars. In line with this agenda, the ruling elite and all its political agencies do their utmost to downplay, distort and cover-up the real history of 1917 and, in particular, the lessons of the Russian Revolution, the most significant political event, not just of that year but of the 20th century.
Next, Anzac – and its special day – have always been contested. Since 1916 many war veterans (not least the original Anzacs who protested against the politicisation of the war they fought) have refused to take part in commemorations. This year Douglas Newton’s new book about the soldier and objector Private Edward James Ryan highlighted the deep divisions among soldiers and broader society about Australian involvement in the first world war.
https://readingaustralia.com.au/books/the-one-day-of-the-year/
Undoubtedly one of Australia’s favourite plays, The One Day of the Year explores the universal theme of father–son conflict against the background of the beery haze and the heady, nostalgic sentimentality of Anzac Day. It is a play to make us question a standard institution – Anzac Day, the sacred cow among Australian annual celebrations
Date of Publication 1958
Fuckin hell, that's a bit personal, innit?
downvoting everyone who doesn’t agree with every word of your precious article
What are you talking about?
I like Zagorath's comment, that's why I upvoted it. I don't care if someone doesn't entirely agree with Me, I still upvote a good comment.
There were Australians at the time who supported their brothers. They said, "stay home." And there were also Australians at the time who said "Let's go kill people in the name of honour", and who encouraged their brothers to a miserable death. Australia never conscripted for World War One. Everyone who died in those trenches chose to be there. Everyone who died in those trenches was a killer. Everyone who died in those trenches after telling his mates to enlist was a killer of his brothers.
The moment that we allow the present day armed forces to participate in the ANZAC day parade, what intent you claim was once there is lost. You cannot say that war is bad, and that we should not have soldiers sailing to foreign lands to kill people, and at the same time permit the minions of Dictator Charles to parade around in their dress uniforms. Many of those soldiers marching today participated in the forever war in the middle east. They did not learn their lesson from Gallipoli. All those ANZAC day parades, year after year, and they did not learn. They will never learn so long as the present day military is permitted at ANZAC day, glorifying the violent institution that they inherently are. That very vocal section who glorifies death and violence are the same people organising, participating in, and attending the parades. Anyone who learned their lesson either stayed home today, or protested.
If discussion of politics is not to your liking
Actually, I am Extremely Political. Here are My blog posts on the subject of the subject of politics. One admittedly quite aggressive on the subject:
https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/there-is-no-such-thing-as-apolitical-and-claiming-otherwise-is-dangerous-72180711a310
https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/apolitical-queers-dont-deserve-to-opt-out-of-discourse-25bf467f9cc2
Also, I admit that I am constructing a very emotional narrative in the blog post, which is a transparent attempt at emotionally manipulating people into feeling empathy and patience for the big scary person living with NPD. I find that when I use language that permits people to think of these issues as a matter of cold, hard, factual accuracy, their ability to empathise with oppressed peoples who they've been told to hate is deeply impaired. Stories are the language of human memory. They're easy to listen to, easy to remember, easy to think about, and easy to feel about. The human mind is optimised for processing stories more readily than facts. So I often try to present facts as stories.
In any case, thank you for the idea to ask Ian directly. I just did so, and I plan to heavily rethink My post if he agrees.
I think that aggression against people on the basis of disability is inherently reactionary, no matter the scale of the aggression, nor the disability in question. Furthermore, there's also the fact that Ian thinks Gary was wrong to defend an indigenous species from genocide by a colonising power. That is an incredibly bad take to be coming from an outlet often touted as exemplary of leftist values. And the fact that it seems to be a factor that the liberator of the indigenous people is supposedly disabled, makes it very sus.
I use capitalised neopronouns because I'm transgender and nonbinary. I'm sure you didn't realise that, or else you wouldn't have complained about My pronouns. And yes, I am a person living with narcissistic personality disorder. You can psychoanalyse a potential connection between My gender and My disability if you wish, but please don't feel the need to share your opinion of My psychiatric history, as I've heard, and thought about, it all before. Chicken, egg, it doesn't matter to anyone else but Me, because it doesn't hurt anyone except perhaps Me. That is if people are not understanding of My gender identity.
I'm nonbinary. You're referring to Me as "he", but My pronouns are "They/Them". Please edit your comment to avoid misgendering Me.