I’m only speaking for myself, but the impression that I get from the term “bourgeois decadence” is essentially that someone is so rich that thon can just flout social norms more or less without consequence, and that because the bourgeoisie already necessarily oppresses the proletariat in order to exist, that capitalists are going to be shitty people who will desire to disregard social norms more than proletarians.

The problem comes when someone acts like every instance of a rich person using their wealth to flout a social norm is “cut from the same cloth” — this is an uncritical way of looking at social norms. In truth some social norms which are widespread among the proletariat do serve the interests of the class, but many other social norms have been imposed by the bourgeoisie (or just as well inherited during proletarianization and never unlearned), and many other social norms still have some aspects which are beneficial and some aspects which are harmful to the proletariat. To figure out which social norms belong in which categories, one needs to actually analyze the roles that these norms play in society in context.

The idea of “bourgeois decadence” is important here. It’s not something I ever found to be very compelling so I don’t have much analysis to counter it.

The obvious answer here is that there are millions upon millions of trans people who have just never come out or transitioned, because it’s just unsafe or not materially feasible for them. Calling transitioning “bourgeois decadence” is like saying that having clean drinking water is bourgeois decadence, simply because the wealthy don’t struggle with acquiring it like the poor do.

Anyways I’d handwritten a whole essay maybe a year ago presenting a case for supporting trans rights from a materialist perspective, but it was too long to fit in a Lemmy comment so maybe I’ll share that as its own post later. I’m not sure if I agree with it 100% in hindsight but it’s still got some interesting thoughts.

Otherwise Marxism Today made a video on trans liberation, and I’ve been meaning to check out Feinberg.

I want to say Kin-Dza-Dza. It’s a very silly and memorable work of Soviet science fiction.

Yim Yum!

My mental MP3 player in response to this image decided to put on “Blumenkranz” from the Kill la Kill soundtrack

And when everyone’s female… Muahahahahaha, no one will be.

It was! https://anilist.co/anime/109019/Diary-of-Our-Days-at-the-Breakwater/

I have incidentally always headcanoned Makoto as being Non Non Biyori’s “Glasses-kun” post-transition.

Thesis: blåhaj dress go spinny anime girl gay sounds

Antithesis: go fishing wear camo drink beer hangout

Synthesis:

※ Non-alcoholic

It’s a Ranma 1/2 reference, don’t worry about it

They should try pouring hot water on each other

Honestly I thought the dementors were squid ink before I read the label

Fullmetal Electoralist

Indeed. I made a comment about wanting to get vored by anthro hyenas and the next thing I knew I was here.

hell yeah kinby

Well, it is now 3 years since that article was published back in 2017, and I’m proud to say that my memories have not been altered in any way that I can tell.

On an unrelated note, I’ve been hooked on this sparkling water called “Dr. Breen’s Private Reserve”

Removed by mod

Jimmy Neutron “sodium chloride” ass reply, “everything is edible at least once” is a common joke that works precisely because words’ definitions are not rigid

Edit: I think it’s best to leave this comment up as I originally wrote it, but I’m also going to go on the record to say that I could’ve and should’ve phrased this a lot more cordially.

Washington Post is @washingtonpost.com, so evidently not.

Edit: Bluesky has this about page which is relevant.

The long awaited sequel to Tako Luka Maguro Fever

Amanita bisporigera, or the aptly named eastern North American destroying angel, if anyone’s wondering.

From Wikipedia:

The principal amatoxin, α-amanitin, is readily absorbed across the intestine, and 60% of the absorbed toxin is excreted into bile and undergoes enterohepatic circulation; the kidneys clear the remaining 40%. The toxin inhibits the enzyme RNA polymerase II, thereby interfering with DNA transcription, which suppresses RNA production and protein synthesis. This causes cellular necrosis, especially in cells which are initially exposed and have rapid rates of protein synthesis. This process results in severe acute liver dysfunction and, ultimately, liver failure.

I could not confirm that it causes liquefactive necrosis of the liver specifically, however. I wouldn’t doubt it, but I couldn’t confirm it.

Edit: I should clarify, I got this from the original thread on Bluesky, not my own identification.