Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.
The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.
RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.
A third wave concept yes. The only issue with the liberal conception of it is that it does not include class as one of its methods of analysis. The intersection between a black trans woman creates different conditions to that of a white trans woman, but without class it creates an incomplete analysis. Class explains the difference in experience that creates for example the right wing trans bourgeoisie, who ultimately are insulated from the conditions that a poor working class trans person experiences and thus they politically lean towards protecting their class status even if it means supporting people who are hurting trans people. Marxist intersectionality simply adds in class to complete the picture and analyse groups correctly.
It’s a balancing act. Protecting the marginalised while also connecting the dots between class issues and their issues. The issue is that people go too far one way or the other, the groups that want to never defend the marginalised groups for fear of the outcome simply become reactionaries themselves. Although a controversial figure Stalin’s quote on antisemitism leading the working class into the jungle is just as relevant to all the various minority groups today.
Because it’s not about him. It’s about the LGBTQ+ people. This attitude reeks of the same “why can’t you just like be a little less this and a little more that”, which is something the various phobes and bigots (whether they realise it or not) have consistently levelled at lgbt people over the decades. They decide what they are, and how they like to present their community and identity. Zizek doing this shit just demonstrates he fundamentally doesn’t give a fuck about us, and that he would only like to make these groups politically more convenient for himself. On top of that there is the other issue, that lgbt people have for decades now had to exist in a “fuck you, we exist in public and that’s your problem not ours” attitude to public life and existence, attempts to make them adjust how they exist in public life are always going to be viewed as attacks when that is the cultural background of the community defending itself and its right to exist. That’s what “pride” is, a big fuck you we exist we’re proud of that and visible. Having people come in from outside and try to tell them to do it differently is… Not good. It’s out of touch. It shows he’s never really engaged properly in order to understand this group, how it got to where it is, why it defends itself so aggressively, etc etc.
I think they’ll take the election hit over implementing it. But we’ll see.
What happens after that? Who has the teeth to force its implementation? Anyone at all? Or can the courts do nothing more than “we find you in contempt” ? What actual repercussions does that have other than electoral? The bougies can play the electoral game and come out on top forever if there is no real way to force any of these parties into implementing it when they don’t want to do it. They could fuck around for years, and then throw it out in some crisis saying “it’s no longer viable because [excuse here]”. “It’s been too long”, “we have war now the conditions are different”, “there’s a famine from climate change occurring now”, “we have a water crisis”, “the war with china”. I can think of so many things that are just around the corner that could be used as excuses. As long as the ““punishment”” is only in the ballot box they could feasibly fuck around forever, if no alternative mechanisms of forcing it through exist.
See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say “fuck you we exist” for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, that’s perfectly warranted they’re autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All you’re doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.
Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in “It is me who is perceiving this”, i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if there’s others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what you’re doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.
(It then shouldn’t come as a surprise that there’s no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. It’d be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)
Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why I’m e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people who’d rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.
The whole thing would be easier if language wouldn’t force us to choose a gender. There’s plenty of language in which that’s worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you can’t talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but there’s also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which it’s possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and that’s the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyone’s a they? (which is what I actually meant the “everyone’s a +” thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).
As to visibility: That’s what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that they’re not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say “yep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless it’s nothing out of the ordinary”.
If the government ignores courts then we’re in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldn’t be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:
and that’s what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, there’s already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say “told you so” so there’s that and it might very well play into parole hearings.
The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when they’re of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it – that’s a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue “this half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the law” type of orders. But that’s because they’re balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, they’re, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isn’t an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldn’t be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They don’t have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.
I mean it’s not that Mao wasn’t ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.