#bundleofstyx

Oh you were being cancelled? What for tara? What did you to get so much negative attention? What did you do a couple months ago to garner so much hate? Could it have been the fearmongering? Could it have been faking a threat from the FBI? Could it be the fact that you utterly betrayed the trans community by sowing fear and confusion for profit? You sick fuck?

the 'abuse' was, nakedly and in totality, the behaviour of a desperate, lonely, suicidal woman struggling to feel valued and regulate her emotions (while dealing with at least one undiagnosed executive dysfunction issue).

this 'dump your puppygirl' article from tara knight reeks of that kind of inversion; here is someone who is struggling, crushed under multiple axes and unable to engage with those difficulties and the feelings that come with them. they are: abusive! a leech! exploitative! dangerous! malicious! cut them off!

it is horrifically ableist and comically transmisogynistic. just a total shit-show of an article. a real opportunity to engage with a difficult topic, squandered, instead rendered down into a borderline-incoherent angry stream of bile - outrage at which is, of course, basically bigotry.

People like this are the reason I don't want to attempt a poly situation anymore. Because I got unlucky and ended up in multiple situations with people who just used it as an excuse to cheat, even though they literally didn't need to and could have just had a conversation. It fucked up my trust in people so badly that I just don't want to risk it anymore. On top of making me feel like I wasn't worth giving a shit about, feeling used, feeling like everything those people said about caring about me was a lie. I loved those people and the cheating destroyed me for a while.

The vocabulary of trans feminism has been learned by enough people that it has begun to produce its own cheap imitations.

not true, "transmisogynoir is the fulcrum" is still not the guiding slogan of the transfeminist movement > Cute. Pause. you might find yourself asking “Tara why bother responding to something so insignificant”

not smth i ever considered b/c of how obviously this is bothering you

and my beautiful women who read my articles it’s simple. I very rarely get to have a Marxist conversation with someone who I find intelligent unfortunately this will not be this conversation.

i dont like to get shitty about lack of punctuation, cause i habitually only use it enough to make smth legible, but jfc

you can actually tell when it starts being AI generated by when the grammar gets good

This is algorithmic feminism. Feminism optimized for the discourse environment: the reblog, the ratio, the hundred-note post, the correct-sounding paragraph that produces approval without requiring sustained contact with the material it claims to analyze. It pattern-matches.

theshockofrecognitionjsakai.jpeg

The essay I am responding to was published on a Substack the writer opened the morning she published it. She had spent the night reading the first of four essays in a cycle. She had not read the other three.

She wrote eight thousand words.

if volume and verbosity were discrediting you'd have all rights to publication and speech revoked

Many of the words are correct.

this means nothing. i could say "This sentence is false!" [not to date my age] and then say "many of these words are true" and it would mean Literally Fucking Nothing

The analysis built from them is algorithmic: it begins from a verdict, deploys vocabulary in its service, and calls the result trans feminism. The verdict is that I want disabled trans women to die.

actually, putting the conclusion first then showing how it was arrived at is an extremely common rhetorical strategy for polemics

The first essay failed in ways I have already named. It was too sharp at the point where it needed more care. It took a figure produced by trauma, dependency, disability, kink, collapse, transsexual social life, and relational asymmetry, and cut into her before it had fully sat with what had produced her. That is mine. I have said it. I mean it.

you dont because your entire sordid career has been nothing but being shitty about other women's appearance and being messy online

What I will not do is let that failure become a blank check for bad theory.

yeah cause you want the checks to be written and credited to you

The piece I am responding to opens by saying it will not “simply tear into hateful bigotries” because “others have done that.” Watch what this opening does. The essay does not argue that my work is hateful.

work cannot be hateful of itself, except that it is imbued with hate through manipulating narratives and portrayals to stoke hate in others by exploiting existing social relations

It does not make the case, cite the passage, walk through the reasoning. It states that the hateful bigotries exist, credits unnamed others with the work of demonstrating them, positions itself as above that mode of argument, and then proceeds to use the established verdict as the floor of everything that follows.

You Are Doing The Exact Thing That You Are Accusing Her Of. you literally are telling us how you feel and how you think we should feel and why, before you actually demonstrate anything to Us The Audience

The condemnation is in the first paragraph.

and yours is in the 6th, and its still just as premature as youre alleging

The body is buried before the autopsy begins.

youre practically getting caught with blood on your hands after staging a crime scene girlie

The rest of the response is built on top of a conclusion the piece did not earn.

writing isn't supposed to "earn" a conclusion, its supposed to demonstrate one

Every subsequent accusation of bigotry lands on ground the piece did not level itself. That is not analysis. That is rhetorical inheritance: take somebody else’s verdict, build your house on it, and call the foundation “what we already know.”

i dont think one has to rediscover the process of human digestion to know that they need to shit. as Mao says, “If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart! You will feel much better for it.”

The piece says it is responding not just to the original essay but to “the reaction which followed.” This matters because throughout the response it slides between three separate objects without telling you which one it is addressing at any moment. When it wants the cleanest indictment, it reaches for the harshest passages from the first essay. When it wants to claim I have not corrected anything, it treats the subsequent work as the same argument with softer lipstick. When it wants to make a political point, it addresses the whole community reaction as a single event.

thats cause it was a polemic in response to another polemic. it isn't responsible for making your arguments for you

Consider what this produces for the reader: the first essay gets blamed for failures the subsequent essays corrected,

boy i hope those corrections were pointed out and self-criticized. it'd sure be shitty if the authress of these essays has a habit of sweeping shit she did under the rug and rebranding!

and the corrected essays get dismissed on the grounds that they are basically the same argument.

the correctedness of the subsequent essays atp is only alleged

The only way this works is if you commit in advance to reading no development as genuine development.

well, thats cause it is. lack of development in a given direction is actually the development of amenability to the hegemonic norms

The piece has committed to that in advance. If I moved to Berlin and learned German and apologized in German, the piece would note, correctly, that I had lived in Atlanta originally, and then proceed from there.

this is possibly the most non-sequitur non-sequitur that has ever not followed

The piece asks why I wrote about this figure at all.