The PSL just released two documents related to the recent Marissa Sanchez post detailing her experiences at the national level of the PSL. I'm going to be posting both of them as well as their full text for archival purposes.
I should note a couple things before I link these things:
- At multiple points, the report mentions that Marissa was reportedly fine and thankful during and after the immediate events of this incident and it's cover up. This is shown to be an example of proof that she was fine at the time, and leads into building the case that this is a factional decision. However, I am not convinced that this means she is cynically using this to split the party for her own ends. Betrayal Blindness is a collection of responses and symptoms broadly related to a person being betrayed by someone whom they rely on for financial, personal, romantic, or political needs. In order to come to terms with my experience of the same exact tendencies on a local level I read the book "Betrayal Blindness" by Jennifer Freyd, and I implore everyone to read it as well.
- Repeatedly they claim this is the result of a factional dispute. That might even be true in some ways, perhaps Marissa saw that there was a different way to organize going forward and it gave her the ability to be able to accept the abuse she faced. This, however, doesn't have to only come from a sense of macabre cynicism, being able to finally use her trauma as a loaded gun to split the party for her own selfish ends as described in the article. For myself, when I stepped away from the party for my Leave of Absence, I was able to begin to be engaged in mass organizing work that I wasn't in prior, that I didn't have the time for. This has given me the courage to be able to stand up and say that I don't think is acceptable at all.
- I am not in a faction, have not been in communication with anyone in a faction, and my disgust is only colored by my own similar experiences and emotional waves being thrown right back in my face as someone who's faced the exact same tactics myself. I'm genuinely just a trans woman by myself, I have some friends and comrades, but our local branch is still up in the air
The party routinely expects things like this to be leaked, so they prepare for the possibility. Given they already know we're going to do this, I'm just going to share the documents here for you and others here, and I leave it up to you and your comrades to decide how you feel about the party and it's current leadership. For me, the emphasis on how this fits into factional warfare is not only not convincing, but honestly disgusting.
Comprehensive Report from the Central Committee in Response to Marissa Sanchez’s Letter
NDC Statement (Sept. 2026), the password is ndcstatement
c\main so main
I don't think it does that at all, but regardless can you see how the point that I was making wasn't really about that but rather a hypothetical? Granted, I agree with the hypothetical, but my point in discussing it isn't to prove what did or didn't happen but to explain what would be appropriate if it did happen.
This might seem obtuse to you, but can you see the difference? The reason that I am explaining this to you is that I don't have the slightest interest in your opinion on what actually happened, given what you have said so far. I am just commenting on an issue with significance "downstream of" the real point of dispute.
Well it seems pretty unhelpful to entertain vague "hypotheticals" when there is an actual real scenario being discussed from multiple points-of-view. It seems appropriate to try to avoid FUD and casting aspersions on entire organizations.
Do people just say FUD now? I thought that was reserved for those weird internet cultists living in denial about something they are compromisingly invested in. You know, crypto guys.
My initial comment was not casting aspersions at any organization nor was it doing "FUD," it was explaining part of the framework for how these issues should be dealt with in general, which here is relevant to because if one side of the debate is right, then clearly the relevant leadership would need to go.
If someone is on trial and you point out the severity of the minimum sentence for the alleged crime, is that casting aspersions? No, obviously not, it's explaining some of the significance of the trial.
I would further add that the initial comment that I responded to was unhelpfully flippant because it totally sidestepped these exact terms by question-begging the issue of culpability (to deny it) while insisting that the person you are responding to is saying we should punish people who we aren't holding as culpable. I think this is indefensible and rhetorically underhanded.