Just Found This While Scrolling And It Seems Remarkably Similar To Consistent Progressivism But With
just found this while scrolling and it seems remarkably similar to consistent progressivism but with contrasting values; wanted to ask what are the core fundamentals of quidditism and how does it compare to consistent progressivism; what would be some key differences between the two stances /neu
We could be considered similar for 2 aspects.
First one is, we're radqueer adjacent, and so are they. That means being pro-para, pro-bodily autonomy, pro-transid, and profiction for example.
The second similarity is that contrary to the radqueer community, that is closer to the MOGAI community on this point, we are not just a community for people to be themselves. We would like to do some activism as well, a trait we share with consistent progressivism.
However, the similarities stop there, and thank goodness.
I am working on an article about this, but they are basically fascists that covered themselves in rainbows. For a quick explanation, I reblogged this post (link) that explains the basics pretty well.
But let me give you the three main differences.
First: science denial. They redefine words and consider using Google and dictionaries as being conservative. Here is a screenshot of their Discord server.
In the thread linked to this, they list words that are conservative to use in their opinions. These words include parent, family, adult, anarchy, biology and age, amongst others.
Second: they believe everyone can consent to everything. Here is their resources about this. We quidditists have much needed nuance on this subject.
Third: to preface this, I'll start by sharing a screenshot of their definition of conservatism.
In short, they define anyone who holds discriminatory views as a conservative.
In practise, anyone that does not fully agrees with them is labelled a conservative. I won't get into it here, but it is one of the few cult tactics they use: the "Us vs Them" mentality.
Now, the bigger problem with this, is that they wish to violently genocide and torture everyone they see as conservative. They talk about this quite often in their Discord server, and even asks new members to describe how they would torture and violate a conservative in order to get verified.
Here is proof of them wanting to unforce this violence on everyone they label a conservative.
(other than their graphic & Discord sticker, the black & white images are quote pics made with a bot from messages on their servers, that they keep in a special channel)
Quidditism advocates for violence to only be used if you need to, as a last resort, and strictly as much as necessary and humane. Aka no torture, rape, slavery,...
I hope this clears things up! And thank you for your good faith question! /g
If anyone has any more questions, please send them my way! I'd be happy to answer them! /g
More Posts from Quidditism and Others
It's so telling that the 3 main arguments against consanguinamory are birth defects, assault, and personal disgust.
"What if the babies are born disabled?!"
What if they don't want kids? Hm? What then? Also, even if they did want kids, that's also fine because it's take generations for a debilitating disability to form, and the chances of that only increase by 3% and since I'm gonna wager most people aren't consanguinamorous, I don't see why that matters. Non-relatives give birth to disabled kids all the time. Being disabled isn't a bad thing. Being inbred doesn't mean you're automatically going to be born disabled. They use the whole think of the children bullshit to shut down the conversation.
"But my relative assaulted me/there are relatives out there who assualt their family, therefore consanguinamory is bad!"
If it isn't consensual, it's not consanguinamory, it's abuse. This is like if someone said, "Gay men are bad because some gay men have assaulted other men." Oh, wait, they do say this, don't they? And y'all keep reinforcing it with this kind of thinking.
"I just think it's icky."
That's fine, but your personal disgust shouldn't dictate how others should or can live their lives. No one is forcing you to date your relative(s). Not everything is for or about you. If people are happy and aren't harming anyone, then it's fine. It's fine, y'all.
"Solarpunk will never happen!"
As if it's not already coming, already here and starting to bloom before our eyes.
Neighborhood cooking clubs and libraries lending out more then just books, it's the art club that the community garden started, it's the funky gardens my neighbors have.
It's the DIY projects ppl wear with pride and ones that hide in the back of their dresser drawer. It's in the magazines and podcasts and in passing hope forward.
Like gruella gardening alone is enough for proof of concept for me, but the rise in community events and potlucks and fighting for rent caps and UBI and decentalizing energy and gardening is happening now.
And yea I gotta fight nazis and dickwards daily for it, and I gotta spend the time to educate and build up as I take down, but they can't say this future isn't coming. I'm here with you right now in it.
The flag situation
It's been brought to our attention that the original versions of the quidditism flags hel a lot of resemblance to the flag from a queer facsist group rising to "fame" lately.
At first, we elected to ignore it, but alas, nobody wants to be conflated with these people.
The flag has therefore been changed.
The old designs will stay up on this post and can of course still be used, but the main flag is now the one on the pinned/coining post.
Old flag designs:
New flag design:
Despite popular belief, smelling bad is not actually a crime and should not be used to judge someone's morality or character. Lots of good people smell stank as hell. Real bad. You can acknowledge that bad smells are unpleasant, and how you might not want to be around someone who stinks (I choose to suck it up personally, just acknowledging it as an option!) without perpetuating a sentiment that causes disadvantaged people to face more harm and scrutiny. Stand up for stinky people I'm being so genuine rn.
One of the things that make us personally uncomfortable with the notion that child-appearing or young-appearing headmates can never consent:
We have a genetic condition that makes our body look a lot younger than we actually are. We didn't look like an adult til our late twenties/early thirties and even then, just barely.
But we WERE an adult when we got married. And there was no harm in anyone, including our ex, being attracted to us. Or our current partner, who's several years younger than us but looks several years older.
When we got married, our headmate Sunni Willow felt about 16, though we were bodily 21. She could give consent because our brain was that of an adult.
Our ability to give informed consent matters. And is the only thing that matters.
That TV show wasn't created by Netflix it was created by workers exploited by Netflix.
That comic wasn't created by Marvel it was created by workers exploited by Marvel.
That video game wasn't created by Nintendo it was created by workers exploited by Nintendo.
Stop giving capitalists credit for things artists make!
I wish we had been born into a kinder time.
But we weren't. So we're going to have to build one.
I wondered why green is so associated with hope and then I remembered being 8 and seeing a little plant sprout after a few days of waiting and. Yeah. I get it now.
-
lifebeing liked this · 1 week ago -
quidditism reblogged this · 1 week ago
