ziq OP wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by !deleted29671 in I honestly don't think anarchy is something you can be taught by ziq
k so that's just completely redefining "nature" to mean its opposite (nurture).
When has anyone ever uttered the words "it's in your nurture"? Never. That's not a sentence. "It's in your nature", however, is an incredibly common phrase used everyday to describe someone's character.
My personal nature has certainly been influenced by my genes/blood (because of my various disabilities) that have affected the way I interact with the world in multiple ways, but society's reactions to my existence, especially in childhood, have been far more influential to my nature than my shitty genes.
I abhor authority because of the way people have forced it on me or exploited me with it, not because it's something I inherited from my bloodline or whatever the fuck you're trying to claim I said. No one is born with the capacity to hate authority. It's something that comes from our lived experience, especially during our formative years.
Imagine making an alt to attack me for saying it's not in everyone's nature to be an anarchist... It was such a harmless comment, a common phrase everyone uses. Have you considered that maybe your pissy reaction to my completely inoffensive comment and your current attempt to tell me what my own ideas mean says more about your politics than mine?
Yet you're now claiming this is something that can develop over time?
No, my point was that you can't learn it from a book. It's something that's instilled in you by your formative experiences. If you're not already averse to authority, you can't become averse to it by reading Kropotkin.
ziq OP wrote (edited )
I haven't backpedaled on anything.
I had no idea what you were talking about at first and it took a half hour of reading about essentialism before I realized your comment was an attack and that I'd offended you somehow. Then it took you attacking me further in a different post before I realized you were using an entirely different definition of nature than I was, and that's what set you off.
You tried to ascribe the obscure scientific definition of 'nature' onto my usage of the word when I was using the far more common colloquial definition ("disposition, temperament"), and then you mocked me for your misconception. You could have just asked me to explain what I meant, but you went straight for the snark.
Are you seriously going there? This is literally the argument rightwingers use to deflect from their shit
I see this is a pattern with you so I'm just going to disengage before I stress myself out trying to appease your impossible standards for discourse. It's never fun when the person misconstruing your words to paint you as a conservative then accuses you of acting like a reactionary for defending yourself.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments