this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
32 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13942 readers
689 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
is there criticism though? like if you dont like his streams you probably are a chud.
yes, there is a lot of legitimate criticism. he might have a couple of good China takes, but he holds a lot of state department propaganda as true— says there is a “cultural genocide” of Uyghurs and propagates the “state capitalist” obfuscation.
CW: sexual assault
he is also unapologetic abt soliciting prostitution and anyone who calls him out on it, he calls sex work exclusionary. im not gonna entertain a struggle session rn. but think abt this: to have solidarity with sex workers, one must understand that sex work is real labor, and labor under capitalism is coercive, therefore, soliciting sex from a sex worker is coerced sex (i.e. r***). johns are r***ists, to deny this is to deny the material reality of sex work, and insulting to sex workers
could you explain this position on SW to me?
cw sv
the two components seem at odds, because usually when people take the solicitors are r***ists line, the prescription is banning it. but almost every mode of support for sex workers i've heard of involves the further legalization & formalization of SW. how do you square this?legalize sex work but have harsher punishments for soliciting prostitution. stop jailing sex workers, instead punish the johns
how can sex workers make a living in the open if their customers have to be underground? wouldn't this empower brokers to insure a successful transaction, just like under regular prohibition?
how do sex workers have customers now? the only difference would be sex workers would have more power over their clientele. this also lessens the power of brokers bc their occupation would still be illegal, as they are a party to solicitation of sex. full legalization is what would give the brokers more power, as it makes their business legal, elevating them to the proper, legal bourgeoisie— paying wages to sex workers while legally extracting their surplus value
i would argue the way sex workers get customers is at the core of your complaints about sexwork. you'll still need pimps if the johns need to vet/be vetted to avoid getting arrested, it's part of the reason they exist now. the other component, safety, is not affected so much by the legal immunity you propose, because everyone involved except the sexworker are committing illegal acts, and so the trade is still secret & incentives to not report/act on abuse remain for those parties---even for the SWs who might still risk their livelihood.
if neither party is committing a crime, the reasons for a broker diminish, or their role more resembles an agent. if a crime is committed any party can call for help, not just the sexworker. for the record i'm advocating decriminalization, not legalization into designated brothels in designated districts
good points. johns and pimps are still reprehensible, but i can see how decriminalization on both sides can be safer/better for sex workers
drug dealers, even the legal ones are shittheads too, but when the trade is public they've less ability to poison people, which is the best we can do short of revolution. thats the other decriminalization case i think is helpful to think about and compare.
thank you for being patient in helping me understand this better
thanks for listening!