Recent comments

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm going to try to read through this slowly and make some responses bit by bit.

I tend to read Nietzsche through secondary material that dumps what is bad about him, so I can't say I know his work directly, but here goes.

I don't think the difference between morality and ethics is what this writer says. ["morality is often explained as those restrictive social rules that govern the distinction between right and wrong so as to shore up the legitimacy of institutions of domination, (the easiest example being the dictums of the Catholic church.) As a counter-point, we have ethics, an evaluation of action that stems from the negotiations between comrades or ‘personal’ sensibilities, (here we might think of an agreement between comrades not to snitch)."]
The "morality" part is mostly right, though I think more bound up in resentment than the writer says here - there were a couple posts around this on raddle directly in relation to resentment here.
I don't think of ethics like the author at all; I think ethics is deeply contingent context-based decision making - i.e. not having your ethical decisions mediated by reified normative structures. (this is important for egoists but I can't speak much about them because I don't care about egoism). For me, the fundamental differences are that ethics is an immanent practice, and morality is mediated and rooted in reaction. Here, analytic philosophy's ethical/moral work can be called 'morality' because it overwhelmingly draws from deontology and utilitarianism; reified normative frameworks that come from outside of the context rather than being immanent to it.

2

Pop wrote

I think it goes something like this

fight for worker control of the factories and workplaces
get worker control
workers care about their environment and are feeling empowered by their control over their lives, so, no longer driven to cut corners by the profit motive, they won't just dump their waste or use bad cheap materials or whatever
???
reverse climate change

3

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

This isn't wrong, but I think there are additional theoretical perspectives and praxes which could be articulated.

The use of biotechnology, such as photoelectric bacteria, could become the basis for a greening and decentralization of electric systems. Additionally, the use of homemade "pharmaceuticals" via a variety of possible methods (isolation from engineered bacterial cultures, automated chemical reactions ala 4 Thieves, etc) could reduce, and eventually eliminate, reliance on industrially produced chemicals for healthcare purposes. A proliferation of raincatches and water purification/storage technology would eliminate reliance on managed watersheds, dams, etc. This is just a sampling of possibilities, but there are flaws in all of them-- it will be a long road to a deindustrialized technological mode.

At the end of the day, the primitivist framework provides indispensible tools for confronting the root causes of climate change, theoretically and practically. However, I think that realistically speaking technologies could be reimagined in such a way as to help end the industrial mode of production. Honestly, I sure hope we can make it so, because I am not willing to let people who are not able to live well without medical technology or running water simply suffer, let alone die

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

So you only need to encounter a violent person, and then you must become violent? You yourself become a violent person, because of someone else's trigger beyond your control.

I don't think I understand your point, but no. Having the right to do something is entirely different from having the duty to do something. If you don't want to defend yourself from violence, by all means turn the other cheek, nobody is forcing you to do anything, not even ancaps.

How about this, then? "Ooh you !@#@$%, I'm a righteous/good/chaste/moral person and (I deem that) you aren't. Therefore I have the God-given right to !$% you!"

As an anarchist? I mean, I'm confused by people who self-censor their expletives on forum posts

but seriously, I think you might misunderstand my perspective on the NAP here. I don't think it's a bad principle to live by, it's basically just an academic repackaging of the Golden Rule.

However, what makes me laugh about capitalist libertarians is the utter lack of nuance and brutal literality to their particular interpretation of this age-old concept. These political tendencies tend to conceptualize society and social actors in an ahistorical vacuum, while leftists by definition are at least attempting to avoid doing that-- leftist ideas, while extremely diverse, tend to be more teleologically engaged than right wing ideas, which is interesting given the long-term trajectory of conservatism's relationship with time since the French Revolution.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

I don't like the implication that there isn't left potential in the people living in the poorer parts of the United States, it strikes me as classist and inaccurate. If this is not what you meant to imply, I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your point. But assuming it is:

There is no larger pool of potentially social democratic (still capitalist, but at least not Republican) voters in terms of both raw numbers and weighted political power (due to the national system which favors these areas politically in the legislature) than in these areas which, for example, Hillary Clinton's campaign did not go to in 2016. A lot of poor and middle class people in non-coastal regions of the United States really liked a figure like Bernard, and it was the abandonment of the platform that he represented which led the US to its current administration.

Millions of people don't give a fuck about politics because there is no clear alternative, only an openly fascist party and a tepid neoliberal bullshit option. In fact, millions of people in politically crucial areas. These people would support politics that engaged with their real needs, instead of representational/symbolic issues. However, the Democrats don't do that shit, because they are not a leftist party. This is a choice, they are choosing to continue losing elections rather than change how they organize their shit, because they are OK being the losers of neoliberal capitalism than the advocates of social democracy, even now that Trump is president.

This particular problem is not inherent to the American public, that is an exculpatory argument used by both Democrats and coastal leftists to excuse their own failures to attract people to their kinds of politics. There is a tiny minority of newer politicians who are pushing the boundaries of the Democrats, but it's almost definitely not enough. The system is fucking up, and has been fucking up for years. It's designed to be fucked up.

I really don't think overall the people have failed the system in the case of this problem: Republican party dominance of the government. It's much more the other way around. This isn't to say that Americans don't have their faults-- there are crucial cultural problems in the States, exaggerated even beyond many other parts of the world, but I don't think it's fair to blame the subjects of an oligarchy for their own subjugation. The US political system is not a reflection of individual moral failings, it's more accurate and useful to see it as a systemic problem.

1

YoBigTime wrote

Thanks a lot for your response!

I’ve heard that it’s safer to use an EAS Hook Key Detacher instead of a magnet for clothes as there are certain security gates that can detect the presence of magnets so they issue a silent alarm for the staff to let them know about a possible thief’s arrival.

What do you think about this?

Can an EAS Hook Key Detacher be as useful as a magnet ?

1

MHC wrote

{f someone initiates aggression, everyone has the right to engage in self-defense.}

So you only need to encounter a violent person, and then you must become violent? You yourself become a violent person, because of someone else's trigger beyond your control.

{It sounds great until you realize that structural violence is both historical and ongoing, and that most people talking about the NAP don't care about that stuff, so then the NAP becomes a talking point to lobb at anyone who tries to actually address the structural violence, and the "libertarians" who talk about the NAP come out as straight-up unapologetic fascists, and then it becomes obvious that all the NAP talk was just gaslighting by right-wing apologists.}

How about this, then? "Ooh you !@#@$%, I'm a righteous/good/chaste/moral person and (I deem that) you aren't. Therefore I have the God-given right to !$% you!"

1

CHJoker8825 wrote

Where I live they talk about it every day on the news. They show very clear pics and catch them within a day. How they are catching people here is they put you on Facebook and then put the word out on things like Garge Sales Groups, any kind of groups in the area. Chances are depending on your age people will know you and turn you in because it’s bad here. They caught 2 today. Just giving you info on how they are catching people here. Also they are using fake packages with GPS.

Be careful.

1

MHC wrote

{People can say whatever they want and they can face the consequences of that. Giving them a circle of cops to prevent a natural response to their hate-filled rhetoric is the problem.}

Indeed the Cambodian Maoists invited the teachers to get on stage and express what was wrong with the state. Then the former trucked the latter into forest, and machine-gunned them!