A single hand pie filled with brown sits in the center, slowly crumbling to bits

Sure but I’ve gotta ask: why not write 7 paragraphs of run-on sentences like a true proletarian!?

The only surefire form of privacy is to not store information digitally in the first place, ideally not at all.

But sometimes we do have information that needs storing. And in that case privacy requires that you control the data at rest and encrypt the data at transit. All free cloud services can snoop your data if they really want to. If you value privacy, minimize your use of them.

You should assume that every social network is ride with spying, both for corporate and governmental purposes. For example, the main reason TikTok is currently getting threatened with a banning is because they have a less fed-friendly algorithm, so large masses of people are actually seeing the horrors in Gaza. If you watch the nightly news, you won’t see that content. If you go to YouTube, you won’t see that content. You also will barely see it on Reddit (which literally hired someone that worked at the CIA to be their community manager person lol). Do your best to dissociate your online activity from your personal identity. Use a good VPN that you pay for with cash or a proxy system like a voucher that can’t be traced back to you. Use burner email accounts. Etc etc.

You will understand why better when you take a look at who they say this to and who they don’t.

This is not something that generally happens to white people speaking some French in the US. It does not raise the ire of this psychology. On the other hand, they love to target brown people speaking Spanish (almost exclusively, in fact). There is, naturally, spillover where white people speaking Spanish or brown people speaking Hindi would get targeted.

As others noted, and as these examples suggest, this is an instance of xenophobia and racism. Language is being used as a proxy, really, and provides a way for these people to unleash the frustrations they have been taught, societally, to have against them. Generally speaking, these are people that will call any brown person that speaks Spanish a “Mexican” regardless of their actual place of birth, where they were raised, or ethnic heritage.

But this is just a surfacr-level analysis. The next question is why they are taught to target people with xenophobia and racism. Why are there institutions of white supremacy? Why are their institutions of anti-immigrant sentiment? How are they materially reinforced? Who gains and who loses?

At a deeper level, these social systems are maintained because they are effective forms of marginalization. In the United States, racial marginalization was honed in the context of the creation and maintenance of chattel slavery, beginning, more or less, as a reaction to the multi-racial Bacon’s Rebellion. In response, the ruling class introduced racially discriminatory policies so that the rebelling groups were divided by race, with black people receiving the worst treatment and the white people (the label being invented for the purposes of these kinds of policies) being told they would receive a better deal (though it was only marginally so and they were still massively mistreated). This same basic play had been repeated and built upon for hundreds of years in the United States. It was used to maintain chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and modern anti-blackness. It was used to prevent Chinese immigrant laborers from becoming full citizens and becoming a stronger political influence in Western states.

It was and is used to maintain the labor underclass of the United States, which also brings us to xenophobia more specifically. The United States functions by ensuring there is a large pool of exploitable labor in the form of undocumented immigrants. It does this at the behest of the ruling class - the owners of businesses - who have much more power to dictate wages and working conditions when it comes to this labor underclass. They make more money and have more control, basically. But this pissed off and pisses off the labor over class, as they have lost these jobs (or sometimes are merely told they lost them even if they never worked them). To deflect blame away from the ruling class for imposing these working conditions wages, the ruling class instead drives focus against the labor underclass itself, as if working that job for poor pay and bad conditions their fault. This cudgel should remind you of Bacon’s Rebellion again: it divides up workers so that rather than struggle together they fight amongst themselves on the basis of race or national origin. The business owners are pleased, having a docile workforce to exploit.

So while racism and xenophobia are themselves horrific and what is behind the "Speak English!’ crowd, it is really just an expression of the society created by this system that, by its very nature , pits workers against business owners while giving business owners outsized power (they are the ruling class, after all).

Another important element to this is imperialism and how imperialist countries carefully control immigration (it used to be basically open borders not that long ago). But I’ll leave that for any follow-up questions you might have.

Bowman is pro-Israel, lol. He has opted to give them basically every material support that he’s had in front of him. DSA had an internal rift over his Zionism where the right wing of DSA wanted to support him regardless.

This is a good lesson for all vaguely left folks interested in electoralism. Even if you try to triangulate to seem less “extreme” or fly under the radar, the capitalist party apparatus will reject you and come for you eventually. You won’t even be able to point to your legacy later, as your cowardice will be the only thing in the rearview mirror. There will be no groups built from your leadership or longer-term wins from your efforts. Instead, you will have supported the genocidal status quo and harmed your own supposed base. So don’t play pretend or capitulate or triangulate. Lead and agitate and organize.

You think the Marcos government returned from partial alignment to the full alignment with the previous neocolonial regime under the thumb of the primary global superpower that already occupies their country and has done so for over 100 years because “China scary”?

lmao

Thank you for the reflection and acknowledgement! That is a rare and good thing and a very good thing to cultivate. Nobody is perfect and I also try to engage in this as early and often as possible. Eventually, it becomes something that is preemptive rather than reactive and you won’t have to look back on things very often and say, “I don’t like what I said” (something I’ve had to do many times myself!). I also think that online environments cultivate a maximalist approach to personal agitation even when it is a situation where that shouldn’t need to happen, so cultivating reflection like this helps us remain socially adept here and elsewhere. We also lose resolution of expression in this format.

In terms of resources, left perspectives on abolition are actually about as old as a discernable left re: capitalism. Early works took sex work being negative for granted and extended their analysis of marriage to include this commodification of (usually women’s) bodies, synthesizing an early form of feminism. Marxist analysis - from Marx and Engels themselves - of the family under capitalism describes the core of this idea of commodification and of women as a marginalized subclass whose marginalization serves a function within capitalism and is therefore maintained by it (and has mores that were invented by it, despite the pretense that “traditional” views towards interpersonal relationships are ancient). It is actually quite revealing to look into even just how relationships among European serfs worked differently.

So there are a few ways to begin approaching this issue and diving down into it further and further. If you prefer to build “from the ground up”, which is better for understanding what these positions are referring to because they use Marxist and anarchist language, you’d want to start with Marx, Engels, Goldman, etc as background and then look at their writings on women, families, and prostitution. For example, Engels’ On The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, while flawed, will lay out some key concepts and the angle from which this was and largely still is approached. Reading Das Kapital is challenging but would provide this with very useful context. Instead of going straight into Das Kapital, for most people I would recommend a companion guide like that written by Heinrich, you could read it side-by-side with any Marxist work and it would be helpful. The ideas expressed there constantly reappear under Marxist feminism (and not all “Marxists”, to their shame, have been feminists!). You will find the same core logic presented in later socialist projects. There are many examples, but Sankara was particularly outspoken about this and women’s liberation more generally, and seeing how it embeds in the conditions of Burkina Faso are revealing.

From the angle of a “liberal-friendly” introduction: there is a somewhat liberal but still materially-embedded abolition organization that lays out the core ideas borrowed from this left tradition here: www.demandabolition.org. As an NGO it suffers from tying one hand behind its back in terms of taking action and hiding any semblance of radicalism, but it has many of the ideas and presents them in a “liberal-friendly” way.

From the angle of a modern article summarizing the position (though citing no sources): https://medium.com/@ihla/on-the-necessity-of-sex-trade-abolition-as-a-revolutionary-marxist-line-2516bb9516db

From an anarchist perspective: Emma Goldman’s On The Traffic of Women. Anarchists who cite this work will often go in the same direction. Unfortunately this is less common in the West in modern times, as the label of anarchism itself has often become diluted into a vulgar horizontalism that doesn’t know its real theoretical and historical grounding. But there are still real anarchists out there that do actually read and know these things and will cite these works.

You’re making an argument against sex work so assuming you expect others to be convinced by it, I think it’s fair to expect a rational argument.

I gave a very basic intro to the idea that there are leftist feminist abolitionists out there. I’m not trying to convice you, I simply offer a path forward for those with curiosity and good faith. You expect things I never offered and brought a combative approach, despite clearly being very new to this topic. Unfortunately, you blame me for this state is things, even though you won’t even attempt to process the basic mind-expanding example I originally provided and have reminded you of twice. It’s hard to move forward when the simple things are turned into roadblocks.

It doesn’t have to be mathematical, but at least rational and honest so I don’t think it’s absurd to point out what I see as a dishonest persuasive technique.

There is nothing I’ve said that’s irrational or dishonest. I just took note that you’re appealing to logical fallacies where it simply makes no sense to attempt the application. You are guaranteed to find some “error in reasoning” if you rely so heavily on this category error, funnily enough, even though no actual errors have been made. It is, very obviously, just defensive behavior. Appeal to emotion? For what thesis? I have no thesis, I merely introduced a basic concept to you.

Given the discussion seems to have devolved now into accusations, I don’t think there’s much more to be gained for either of us. From my perspective, your assertion that sex work is a form of rape is not justified

I didn’t say sex work was a form of rape. I think I’ve explained the related concept 3, 4 times?

simply asserted and then you use that as a basis on which to argue.

Yes this is what introducing people to concepts looks like. You describe the idea and how it relates to some other ones. As I have mentioned 3 times now, you are free to educate yourself in this topic at your leisure. I have never projected the pretense that I was interested in demonstrating the veracity of the entire position from first principles.

A broader appeal to the nature of work under capitalism is simply a non sequitur.

It’s literally just a comparison to get you thinking and questioning. It does not contain the structure of an argument. How could it be a non sequitur? These terms do actually mean things, you know.

You have to show that the impact is similar if you want to make a valid argument here as to why they should be considered the same.

I haven’t done any equating, so your depiction of my claims is false. You’re trying to find flaws in a series of positions you’ve now imagined. I again invite you to go and actually read about this topic rather than pretend I’ve presented a formal argument. At the moment, I believe I’m still trying to get you to acknowledge that forced labor and rape is something you’d think of as worse than just forced labor. Unfortunately you are trying to fight rather than acknowledge the obvious. Or maybe you don’t think it’s worse? Who knows. Can’t seem to get a straight answer.

If you have no interest in doing so, that’s completely fair but you can’t expect anyone to be convinced.

I expect curious people to read up about it or ask questions. I have been fairly plain in presenting this as a very basic description of a position held by leftist sex trade abolitionists. Not a “I’m going to argue the case to everyone” kind of situation. You can tell, in part, because I keep suggesting you self-educate and because I didn’t make arguments.

Just because I do not agree with you, does not mean I don’t take what you say seriously or am refusing to engage with it.

That’s true. It’s the refusing to engage with it that is refusing to engage with it. We’re still stuck on acknowledging the basic meaning of the first thing I said. And discussing a series of invented positions and misidentified logical fallacies. Confusions multiply from thin air while the basics go ignored.

Your efforts would be better served showing that abolishing sex work would reduce harm, rather than attacking me.

I think I’ve explained fairly well why your current behavior is the main barrier. I’ll note that you didn’t address the vast majority of my previous response. Ask yourself why that is.

That’s the joke lol

You can just answer this simple question yourself: is it more harmful to have a system of forced labor or to have a system or forced labor and rape?

If you say it’s the second one you will now have an idea for why it is singled out rather than lumped in with all labor.

Re: things like “appeal to emotion”, that is absurd. This is social theory, not modus tollens. It will all be about impacts in humans, systems, harms, basic empathy, and challenging yourself. There is no equation or deduction. The mere idea is philosophically outdated by at least several thousand years.

You are free to read the literature on this topic or to take this seriously enough to actually engage with it. So far we haven’t been able to get past the very first thing I said, a simple comparison, seemingly stuck on the difference between a comparison and equation. I think you’re perfectly capable of understanding it and then moving forward. But I’m not going to force knowledge into a combative person’s head. You’d need to pay me for that.

Capitalists: why should I have to pay for your training? Go into debt so that you’re pre-trained. Thanks! And by that I mean submit.

I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you were saying so I’m sorry that I have. When I said you suggested imagining the difference I was referring to the statement you made asking me if I thought sex work was uniquely harmful compared to other work. I interpreted that as you asking me to imagine what harm a sex worker might experience. Are you able to clarify that? It seemed to be the core of your argument from what I could tell.

I’m asking you, by analogy, to consider the difference between a forced laborer and a forced laborer that is also subject to rape. Think of it as part of the same coercive system. Historically, it has been.

The leftist feminist consideration looks at work under capitalism as its own coercive entity. Not identical to slavery, but still having its own coercive nature. If one must work to live and one’s sexuality is to be sold (and in a heavily gendered way), it is different than online working to live. It is a commodification not just of one’s labor, not just of the body, but also one’s sexuality and with downstream detriments due to its embedding in a patriarchal society. These things are not separable. “Men can also be X” also does not change this calculus, it just provides another facet that differentially impacts a minority.

The commodification of bodies for sex is also the driver of human trafficking.

The issue I have with your last argument which I articulated is that it does not apply to sex work, but all work. Should we abolish all work given your reasoning or is there a specific reason why sex work should be targeted?

The left anti-capitalist position is the end of capitalism itself. It is not simply a reform within the capitalist system that leaves the fundamental driver of this social context intact. Left advocates of abolition may offer reformist policies but they understand them in this other context.

Hopefully this plus the prior answer addresses the question. There is also plenty of abolitionist literature from communist, anarchist, and syncretic perspectives.

The trafficking aspect is not an issue with legalisation of sex work. It exists whether sex work is legal or not.

Under this framework, trafficking emerges from the aforementioned commodification. Legalization is considered expansionist under this framing, it opens up the labor pool and normalizes this commodification, even telling kids and young adults that this is a profession to pursue rather than something harmful to them. A larger sex trade. More brothels. More “massage” parlors.

Abolitionists tend to advocate for keeping the behavior of “John’s” illegal, making the industry itself illegal while not punishing prostitutes.

To me this is akin to saying people are trafficked for slave labour therefore we should abolish labour. Unless I am missing something, it doesn’t seem follow.

Per this framework we should abolish the capitalist labor system. Abolishing the patriarchal sex industry is something that can be achieved as part of this movement. Same as child labor was abolished (although not for everyone). We punish the employer not the child. We know that the right position is to provide economic support to families and children, not to legalize sending children to the abattoir where we know undocumented immigrant children work.

That’s the definition of qualified immunity. It’s not a law, but an understanding in the courts that cops are special. Ending qualified immunity means passing a law that states cops aren’t special and should be held to the same standards as regular citizens, with grants to do specific things to act in their official capacity (e.g. detain and arrest). […]

Unfortunately, this is not correct.

Qualified immunity means you can’t attempt to sue individual cops when they break the law and do you harm. With qualified immunity, those harmed will sue the city, the county, the state, and so on. The individual cops are not part of this because of qualified immunity. I think we probably agree on that much.

The problem is that the actual cop themselves will not receive any direct consequences from a suit even with qualified immunity removed. This is because they are indemnified by being on-duty. There are precedents for this and the individual cops didn’t have to pay jack. It still came from the city, county, or state.

Realistically, cops cannot be reformed in this way. There are a very large number of roadblocks baked into the system. You will basically have to repeatedly lose, not actually gaining the desired reform, until it escalated to a very high level and passing a very high bar of organizational work on our parts. It’s difficult to maintain momentum when you have to lose 1000 times before winning your goal. You’d need a stronger approach that keeps up energy and finds material intermediate wins.

The most practical thing we can fight for in the immediate future is to defund the police and redirect the money towards the root material causes of crimes (and to decriminalize many things that shouldn’t be crimes in the first place). This can be done at a local level by going after city councils and running proposition campaigns and so on.

We should absolutely be fixing broken windows as we come across them.

???

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/how-to-actually-fix-a-broken-window/

There are more radical and correct framings but even mainstream analyses know that broken windows theory is really just a racist criminalization of poverty that throws a ton of people in jail over minor “offenses”.

But he does. He got a lot of people out voting who wouldn’t have otherwise. They didn’t have a clear, actionable goal, but they did have a clear message: “drain the swamp.”

Like I said and you are now saying, he just has people that will vote for him. That is every single Democratic or Republican candidate. That is not actually a movement. He can’t actually mobilize them. They aren’t involved. They don’t train each other. They aren’t organized. They don’t have an agenda. They’re just good sheep to pull a lever.

The lack of meaningful change was because Trump (their spokesperson) doesn’t care about change, he just cares about being in the spotlight. We can learn a lot from his messaging and turn that into meaningful change.

Trump is a part of the ruling class. One among many grifters that make large piles of money based on other people’s work, knows that Washington really works through money. His self-interest is the same as the rest of the class. He’s just ruder and more direct about it, not being a classy liar.

He didn’t change much because yes, he didn’t want to and therefore received institutional backing and did not confront substantial pushback from moneyed interests. Just like every other President.

That’s just not true. Look at the American Revolution, which was pretty much the exact opposite: classical liberals (individualists) fighting against authoritarianism.

The American Revolution was an inter-bourgeois civil war, more or less. The national bourgeoisie of the colonies wanted to rule itself and keep its cash and whipped up a fervor based on that. They succeeded at that, indeed. They were just as “authoritarian” (a word that means almost nothing in liberal discourse). There is nothing more authoritarian than shooting your enemy in the face so that you get to be in charge now. Remember, the liberal “individualists” we’re talking about were slavers and settler-colonial genociders. Their words are a fairy tale, a myth, used to manufacture consent for ruling class interests, namely sending your kid off to fight in a war.

As a bourgeois revolution, it was relatively top-down in nature. It received its support from a large faction of the existing ruling class, not ground-up organizing against the ruling class. This is not the kind of movement we are talking about and I hesitate to even call it a movement.

Yes, but we don’t know if he would’ve been as successful without doing it. Given the political and social climate at the time, I think King made the right call (for the movement, not for his personal convictions).

I do because I organize. I see how respectability politics tends to result in self-marginalization and defeat, usually crushing attempts in their infancy. A front group is fine, but when you begin to excise your comrades that know how to build from a coherent material base you only hurt yourself. Your movement will peter out. And the civil rights fight did. It was mollifies via legalization of some protections, the targeted murder and blacklisting of its leaders, and the integrating of some of its leaders, usually junior ones, into the ruling class order as politicians that told defanged false histories (ones compatible with using the false promise of ruling class tools) so that correct and useful strategies are not rediscovered.

Sure, broadly speaking, but you can kick out specific individuals that will distract from the message. That’s what King did, and I think his movement was successful for it. That’s called compromise, and it works if you’re careful to not compromise on your core message.

Every time you try to organize, the ruling class will hire a PR firm to identify how to split your groups up and therefore interfere with your ability to act in unison and to make use of more effective strategies. They will promote the least effective groups and strategies, the ones they can control and defang, and demand the exclusion of the more effective groups by using marginalization and vilification. “Kick out specific individuals” is not an accurate framing of how this functions.

The Civil Rights Movement benefited from already having substantial momentum and a subset of socialist organizing tactics by the time the purges began. Had it happened earlier to the same effect it would have been crushed just like it was several times before.

I’m not talking about his later work, I’m talking about the Civil Rights movement.

That doesn’t change the relevance of my response.

My apologies, they’re similar terms and I align with neither, so I sometimes confuse them. King appeared to be more of a social democrat than a true socialist, though he did associate with more radical socialists.

King identified as a Democratic Socialist and became more radical over time as he recognized the same lessons I’m talking about.

No, BLM failed because they didn’t have consistent or lasting messaging.

This is a counterproductive nagging that mirrors the criticism of the white moderate made by King. I’ve already explained how it’s factually inaccurate, but it is also wrong in its basic emphasis. It is the reactionary Obama tut-tuting that would do nothing because it did nothing. Every major city I helped in had unified and clear messaging. It did not get the goods. It is the logic of our opponents who pretend to be our allies but do nothing to help and actually instead promote the logic of self-defeat and false rationalizations. It has no basis in the on-the-ground reality and constitutes inventing realities rather than embedding with the actual people impacted and following the course of events.

It is unserious and a bad faith argument. I suspect you are just repeating it based on hearing others say it and don’t mean it in bad faith yourself.

There are multiple ways to get that, and they did none of them. Chants don’t change laws, actual proposed laws do, and protests and whatnot are there to get media attention for those proposed laws.

There were 4-8 very clear bulleted demands shared by every city movement I worked in that could be implemented with relative ease by any city council. For example, cut the police budget 50%. This does not require, in any way, some technocratic approach or special legalize. Councils are constantly in the business of changing the police budget, they do it as a matter of course. The demand and leverage are all that is needed. Their messaging was consistent and they had dedicated media teams presenting the information and having everyone redirect the press to media liaisons. There were occupations with those demands clearly laid out and tabling to engage community members.

They had exactly what you say was needed. They failed because of your ideas. In thinking that would be anywhere close to enough. In failing to understand leverage and the necessity of having your demands in-hand before giving up anything. And that all of this necessitates core organizing competencies and a coherent internal political line that identifies the enemy correctly, because otherwise you will lose to the internal continents that use your exact logic to defang and break the movement. To focus on messaging and the assumption of good faith from politicians. Of being surprised when you are met with maximum pressure from your alleged liberal allies. Of not knowing on which side their bread is buttered and how to organize to create the power they can’t take away from you using their preferred tools, or asking you to give up your leverage in exchange for their false promises of what your power looks like and how it’s built.

This is not an argument against sex work, this is an argument against all work under capitalism. Fair play, but not what we are discussing here.

I have, in fact, pointed out the core argument for the abolition of sex work made by leftist feminist organizations.

If you want to make an argument against sex work you need to provide a justification for selecting it specifically over other work.

I already did. I made a comparison that you’ve avoided thinking about. You declared it an invalid comparison based on absolutely nothing, but it isn’t.

I don’t think you have really done that other than to suggest imagining the toll sex work must take on an individual.

Who said I was imagining? You seem to be taking a lot of liberty with my thoughts.

Do you have any way to show that it is particularly harmful or any other reason why it should be singled out?

I already did and already pointed out the trafficking aspect. You seem to be interested in avoiding what I’ve laid out. Perhaps you should do some self-criticism as to why you are uninterested in approaching this in good faith.

The current Marcos government is a shift towards the United States and is gladly offering up The Philippines, a neocolony of the United States, as a forward base for the “containment” of China. This includes a reversal in both policy and propaganda when it comes to the South China Sea.

The essential concept is that overthrowing the current order is the most authoritarian thing you can do. It is imposing your ideas on the overall system and it will require coercion. Mutual liberation requires the imposition of a political program that runs counter to the behaviors and interests of the current ruling class. The class with the cops, the armies, the money, the trade. You will have to oppress them or they will kill your movement in its infancy. They will invade you and kill all of your friends. So you will fight them or die and you will have to institute policies against them or die. We do not have the privilege of living in a world where the material forces against us will give fairly give in to popular will or do what is right or not bomb is and our children.

I would add that “authoritarian” is a label that is applied so selectively that is it actively misleading. It is usually a means by which to spread anticommunist thought that ends up reinforcing the far more authoritarian status quo. If one does their best to excise this selective use from themselves, we then end up talking about he first point of brass tacks of what choices are offered to us when we have our own anti-capitalist nation-states. They are, unfortunately, limited given the relentless violence and maximum pressure from imperialist nations. Nuclear Armageddon was only prevented by a far more humanistic socialist bloc on several occasions. The imperialists were ready to go and pushed right up to the limit. There are many examples of this tendency, but Korea is a salient example. They bombed every single population center in the north. Genocidal. It wasn’t even their country. It was just to “contain” the Korean left, which was otherwise going to win without US imposition because it was, organically, more powerful.

What is more authoritarian than a bombing campaign that destroys your entire village?

Let’s look at how many women had been let into administration and top-tier government work.

A higher number than in capitalist countries at the time.

Several of my relatives had papers recognizing their optimization effort, but the directors were always men. You won’t see women in charge here. Read the brief USSR history and try ro find any woman here.

What in earth is “the brief USSR history”? Don’t do that. Actually read about the experiences and representation of women. Dive deep. Compare to the US in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, etc.

The ruling class wasn’t that woke to invite women.

The ruling class of the USSR was roughly 50% women.

And Tereshkova is a demented opportunist who has been never cared for before she started to slurp-slurp putin’s dick in her 70s and unconstitutionally prolonged his service without reelections. She should be cancelled hard.

Tereshkova is the first woman in space, something you can never take from women nor the USSR.

What Cuba accomplishes despite US blockade is truly commendable.

Democrats say: unlimited ethnic cleansing

Yeah of course I oppose those things but I don’t see it as comparable at all. Something being included as an option in the job market is very different from forcing people to do it.

Under most anti-capitalist conceptions it is well understood that you must either work or die, and there is naturally an element of coercion. Wage slavery isn’t just hyperbole. Capitalism drives down wages to bare subsistence and even below. The exceptions tend to be in imperialist countries that provide a relatively higher income by extracting from other countries’ workers and resources. But even then we all know you have to work or die, in the end. You are always threatened with the example of the difficult lives of the unhoused. They help remind you of how little you have to back you up. Housing is the first to go. Or maybe health.

This naturally makes it comparable, as there is the element of coercion. We are left to argue about the extent of the coercion.

A very serious topic worthy of discussion in it’s own right but I don’t see how that’s related. If anything this would be a good reason to legalise and regulate wouldn’t it?

I invite you to familiarize yourself with how trafficking works. Just guessing in the dark does not do the people affected justice.

EDIT: also important to note that people of any gender can work in the sex trade.

Cool well leftist feminist organizations still often the abolitionist perspective I mentioned. This is because women are far more impacted by the sex trade and other organizations tend to have bad positions or no positions at all because they are ignorant. Let me know when other organizations have as developed of a political like on this, as I know of none other than ruling communist parties that were influenced by the women within them.