Notices by 🏴 (scorpiontongue@kolektiva.social), page 5

re: abusers & therapy,
i've been in therapy on & off since i was 15. i stopped for a few years from 26-29, and when i went back, it was bc i was convinced that i was an abuser, and i needed help.

when i got to therapy, the doctor spent a while with me before telling me that i wasn't the abuser — i was the abused person.

and the emotional responses i was so ashamed of.... were things that i absolutely should learn to manage, but that they were reactions to abuse.

ever since that care, the following EMDR & then meeting anti-abuse baddies, i am a different person 🥺 so much more happy and confident, with so much more self-love.

there seems to be a really big gulf in abuser / survivor spaces between people who have more vague definitions of "abuser" (eg. someone who hurts other people) && people who have more clinical definitions (eg. someone who forces relational power over another person.)

&& i think it would be really great if we could all get on the same page. because, in the same way that it's helpful to understand how state power & violence functions, so is it crucial to understand intimate power & violence.

abuse isn't just about causing pain.
it's about power.

i genuinely believe shit that the tankies peddle, like this, functions in the same way a religious text does.

it's vague as fuck. it's super up to interpretation. the language is symbolic as hell.

and thus, tankies can "claim" that all social change that even loosely resembles this model was a communist revolution.

....maybe i'm just cynical, but the more i critically reflect on communism, the more i see it, not as a vehicle that can empower people, but another vehicle to create authority. which, um, is the whole opposite of the alleged stated goal.

my undergrad degree is in religion, which means it's kind of useless. but.
i DID come away with an understanding of two things that have proven to be very important ::

1) religious language is highly symbolic & often vague, which is important for prostelytization because meaning can be imposed for whatever you want it to be, or need it to say.

2) texts have no inherent meaning & no truth. they are ONLY interpretation, which is largely up to the interpreter. thus, movements like "originalism" are smoke & mirrors. there's no "original," essential truth & meaning. there is only projection.

thus, text-based doctrine (whether it be the constitution or the red book) is really just a vehicle to create authority for whoever has the most charisma.

@julieofthespirits
- trotskiests proselytize with books that are too big, not pamphlets with cloud art 😈
- not enough trotskyists to fill heaven 🤭
- trotsky gives the vibe he liked holidays 🥳

tankies remind me soooo much of christians 😭 && i can't unsee it.