Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

unvaccinatedcomedian wrote

fuck school. place fucked me up tremendously

6

subrosa wrote

Same. I've had my fair share of shitty, traumatizing experiences at work, but no other place fucked me up quite as good as school.

6

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Dude... you can't compare oppression of POCs with children's oppression. Non-White people are people like the rest, and that was originally the demands of the Black civil rights movement... that they deserve being treated like everyone else, as they are men on equal grounds with White people. But that was between ADULT men.

Children got things to learn and a social, personal and interpersonal consciousness to grow. Most often this consciousness ain't even fully formed 'till late in their teens, and some adults (like narcissists, etc) are still struggling to gain a consciousness. So you're just not on par with a full-grown adult at the age of, like, 6. This is failed theory.

That kids are held captives of a repressive control system is one thing, that is much agreeable, but the claim they shouldn't be educated and protected by adults is nonsense.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote (edited )

If you're interested in a critique of the idea of "protecting the children" I'd suggest reading the first issue of Baedan. Beyond that there's not much i can say to your points since this piece is the most direct critique of your stance. (Edit: perhaps one could turn to Foucault for example for a more generalized critique but really this journal seems to me the most explicit anarchist writing I'm aware of even though this journal seems to me to actually still be quite lack)

5

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

There's no valid argument against any protection of children whatsoever. What I'm guessing, and I'll have to read this text just to be sure- is that it's referring to this hyper-moralist, security-obsessed "protection" of children that's frequent among parents, which is to me a brainless kind of hypocrisy and double-standards that only allow for abuse and/or neglect to happen in tighter spaces of control.

None of this has to do with the fact that while it's good to let a kid play with scissors and lighters, you don't let them juggle with knifes or put stuff on fire all over the house. There are limits of control. To be careless about those is mindless dangerous to any kids' life and well-being... and also yours.

3

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote (edited )

Okay then we simply disagree. I would love to hear you outline what control you are comfortable with and in what ways that is either informed by your anarchism or how you reconcile it with it.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote

Dude wtf... Are you comfortable with a kid setting your living space on fire just coz you didn't want to control them? Kids often don't know the meaning or consequences of their actions. They gotta be taught these. That's one of the few reasons why there are parents. It's a no-brainer, but somehow at your (apparent) adult age, you didn't realize that...

This has gotta be some sort of trolling.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

There's a lot of assumptions here that make the conversation difficult but to give a simple answer to your question yes.

3

APA wrote

You realize you're engaging with the previously banned pedophile formerly known as A_Zed, right? They are in favor anything that gives them grounds to justify the sexual exploitation of children.

0

monday wrote (edited )

Right now we don't have grounds to achieve the same conclusion you have, but if the red flags keep raising... And this pose another question, can we engage with a person with "problematic" views and discourse if this person don't engage with their "problematic" views and discourse. I mean, clearly we don't accept the discourse here, but how comfortable we would be knowing by fact what you said about them

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I appreciate the attempt, but it would be "Passive_Nihlist's bio does also say "no pronouns" just so everyone knows".

2

[deleted] wrote

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Yes. An alternative, that atleast I am open to, is the use of phrases such as "that person". To give an example. "Yesterday I was talking to this person who said...".

I do not use they/them or neo pronouns because I see them as also gendered and do not wish to be gendered in any way.

1

APA wrote

Gee what a coincidence! A_Zed also uses no pronouns and prefers, nay, demands to be referred to as 'that person' or simply A_Zed.

You really suck at this. Maybe color code your windows to keep track of your alts.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

If you think there is only one anarchist who uses no pronouns you are stupider then I thought. I actually didn't start using no-pronouns before meeting other anarchists who were also gender nihlists.

0

APA wrote

Good cover, bro. You've fooled them all!

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I have no interest in follimg anyone, your absurdity is on full display for all to see. Again all it takes is for one to look with even a tint of a critique.

0

AnarchoDoom wrote

I know... But it seems like there's nothing that will bring them to his senses. As he's got a sexual sickness that took over his brain, apparently.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Sorry for the double response but this is in response to your edits which I think kind of drastically changed what you are saying. Your first paragraphs makes me think you either completely didn't read the text or just didn't engage with it at all. I would definitely suggest if you can trying to sit down with the text in a more critical way, trying to engage with it. Even where you disagree, trying to tease out what the text is saying and then from their formulating thoughts on it, not just if you agree or not but of you disagree what your criticism is, and if you agree identifying in what ways it resonates with you and your experiences. This sort of critical engagement is an important take away I had from "Green Nihlism or Cosmic Pessimism".

In relation to this topic I think addressing the following qusstions while reading may be helpful.

Why do children need protection?

Why does this protection need to come from adults?

What is the line or distinction between an adult and a child?

How do these differences relate to the differences between able and disabled people?

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

These are obvious questions you likely never got an answer for, as they are so obvious as to be asking "Why is genocide a bad thing to do?" or "Is rape respectful of another person's consent?". If you didn't see the obvious, well, you could figure that on your own, if you got a brain...

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I don't really understand why you feel the need to be so hostile, but I get the message, I won't ask you about the topic anymore.

4

RedSimone wrote (edited )

That is just horrible. Whoever wrote it doesn't have any idea of developmental psychology and pedagogy. I wonder how somebody is actually capable of ignoring so large amounts of real life studies and scientific findings? This is exactly what happens when you completely disregard reality and choose dogmatic, philosophical anarchism.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

It seemed to me they weren't ignoring these things but instead rejecting them, similar to the rejection of race science by Black people, or another apt comparison would be the rejection of biology by trans/gender queer people.

If anything it would seem to me this text is rejecting the broad generalizations created by this science and even "common sense", in favor of people actually looking at the reality of children. Meaning to understand children as individuals with their own unique experiences, ability, wants and needs, instead of as this essentialist category.

If you think this is "philosophical anarchism" I would definitely suggest you look into the subject of youth liberation a bit more. Even Emma Goldman discussed it (I believe an essay in "Anarchism and Other Essays" covers the topic). And it is just as important a topic as any other form of liberation (but I believe should also be critically examined through the anti-idpol post-left lens) and their are many youth liberation groups. The Youth Liberation Front YLF being the biggest I know of with several groups across the U.S.

3

RedSimone wrote

Those "broad generalization created by science" are in fact actual academic psychology. And that science (which the author of the text seems to reject) acknowledges that children are individuals. But the text somehow supposes that psychological community is the same as it was in the 1960's?

And any person with clinical experience of children's psychology tells you that children need protection and can't be treated the same way as adults. A person who doesn't have a safe childhood is very likely to have serious psychological troubles and unhealthy habits. Keeping children safe and giving them possibility to develop their personality in peace is not some form of oppression.

Also, the text functions as a justification for pedophilia; if we "liberate" the underaged youth and children, then shouldn't that "liberation" also include sexuality? This is what also Foucault (and many others) argued when they were demanding the abolishment of age of consent in France. The youth liberation has led to some very dark places in the past. It has been basically abused by older men and used as a way to excuse sexual abuse of minors.

2

unvaccinatedcomedian wrote (edited )

acknowledges that children are individuals. But the text somehow supposes that psychological community is the same as it was in the 1960's?

Whatever community it is you speak of may view children as individuals, but the vast majority of adults do not, including teachers and especially parents. I've literally had teachers say to me they plan on "indoctrinating" their students. I assumed the text was referring to culture more generally as well.

Keeping children safe and giving them possibility to develop their personality in peace is not some form of oppression.

Are you saying that schools and parents keep kids safe to develop their own personalities?

If so, I say, children are in no way safe to develop their own unique personalities anywhere where there is compulsory education. Developing a unique personality is completely contrary to schooling which instills norms just by being compulsory and having a fixed curriculum or set of curriculums.

As for parents, I seriously doubt the nuclear family keeps kids safe, but don't really have any argument about it.

4

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

The family, and thus parenting, like all institutions that wield power over children often only worsens abuse. Anecdotally, many of my friends faced abused at the hands of adults who were enabled and protected by these institutions, especially parents.

4

RedSimone wrote

Whatever community it is you speak of may view children as individuals, but the vast majority of adults do not, including teachers and especially parents. I've literally had teachers say to me they plan on "indoctrinating" their students. I assumed the text was referring to culture more generally as well

I don't know where you live, but that is certainly not the case in many countries. This is why people shouldn't just say "teachers bad".

Are you saying that schools and parents keep kids safe to develop their own personalities?

In ideal circumstances yes. But of course reality is often different. The reason for the unsafe homes and lack of decent education is often lack of funding. Often when there is little or no funding of education, the result is an educational institutions that ruled by force and violence. There is no teachers who are experts in pedagogy and psychology. The only way to keep kids at school is then threat of violence. But if you get if resources, you can create schools which serve the healthy development of a child.

1

unvaccinatedcomedian wrote (edited )

The reason for the unsafe homes and lack of decent education is often lack of funding.

While poverty worsens abuse, it seems to me that it is the power dynamics created by these institutions that enables and encourages it.

Often when there is little or no funding of education, the result is an educational institutions that ruled by force and violence.

All compulsory education is ruled by forced. Hence compulsory. If you are saying schools shouldn't be compulsory and instead actually be a place that children want to go to uncoerced then maybe we can find some agreement there.

that is certainly not the case in many countries.

If there is compulsory education in your country then by default children are not respected as individuals as such a thing requires that the dominant culture views children as children that must be in their proper place and not individuals.

4

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Do you not recognize that the pedagogy and psychology you preach is the same indoctrination this person is discussing?

It seems to me all you are advocating is to remove the physical threat of violence that keeps kids in school and replace it with ideology that constrains them to the school. It reminds me of those who advocate the abolition of ghe violent police just to be replaced with more cops on our heads (often found in terms like community defense or accountability, if not more explicitly stated as community policing).

3

RedSimone wrote

Now you are just dogmatic. And I find it hard to understand what you are even promoting? Some sort of abstract "freedom" which is not even possible in this world?

What I want is that children are given an environment without violence and abuse. Are you against that? And if you are really saying that a teacher is same as a violent cop, then I just don't know what to even say anymore.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote (edited )

What I am saying is as you describe. You advocate nothing different then then the current violence and abuse, except that it be made more internalized, less explicit. And yes what I advocate for is an impossible freedom one that can only be lived today.

Edit: I would be interested to hear how you think I am dogmatic.

2

RedSimone wrote

You just don't make any sense to me. And we probably don't agree even on what violence is.

Your opinions make me want to be a tankie.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Im currently reading through the text "Letters of Insurgency". They similarly were unable to understand each other (and many other people) throughout their correspondence and life. Pretty much the whole text, up to the point I've read so far, about half way, has been trying to understand each other and critique eachother. This was extremely difficult for them it seems, even with having a familiarity and love between them.

Perhaps it is simply impossible ti habe such correspondences today, or just on the internet, or perhaps just without that familiarity, I am unsure.

I agree we probably do not agree on what violence is, or a million other things. If there's a lesson I've taken away from this text ige mentioned, it's that I do not want to be a pedagogue. If you have questions about me or my opinions I'll answer them, and I feel I have laid out here some questions to you if you care to answer them.

To pose another question to your final statement. What is freedom if it must be imposed? For myself i do not oppose the state, or authority, or civilization or what have you, because i think it will be some heaven on earth, some utopia. The totality of freedom (to continue to use such a loaded word) includes all the horrible aspects that entails, all the things we would rather avoid, because it is the freedom to avoid them, to look away, not the authority to stop it from happening. And this I think is the meaning of your last statement the difference between an anarchist and a "tankie".

2

RedSimone wrote

Yeah, I don't really understand at all what you are trying to say.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

At the base of it I'm asking you to ask me something that can help you understand.

1

APA wrote

Help me understand how you can justify your scumfuck pedophilia and still expect anarchists to engage in civil dialog with you, you deplorable fuck.

−1

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I don't expect anyone to have a civik discussion with me, I simply want to extend an invitation to those who are interested in a dialogue. I understand why you are upset, even if I see at as misguided. Funnily enough the text I recently mentioned, "Letters of Insurgency" asks the exact question you are asking. Perhaps reading it will offer you some insight.

If you ever are interested in a less hostile discussion please do let me know.

0

[deleted] wrote

1

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

As I stated here in the phrase "I see it as misguided" and have stated elsewhere, I am not A_zed. If I may speak without condemnation (I doubt I can) I think your statement, and it is a statement not a question, does not really dignify a response. You have obviously already cast judgement irregardless of who I am. I'm sure nothing I say means anything to you, I do not mean to suggest it should, but what point is communication when you have no interest in what the other has to say?

I do not believe in justice, which that is what is at the heart of your accusation. If I must answer it to not face repression I can answer it in the negative. But to do so I would say implies other are deserving of this repression. And as I mentioned above, if I believed in repression I would become a Marxist, a priest, a cop. So I reject your question and I reject your justice.

1

[deleted] wrote

3

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Perhaps you see it differently but i do not see how such a question can be anything but an accusation. I apologize as I'm sure I come off as defensive, it is because I am. I do appreciate your clarification even if I disagree. I will not bother you with the rest of the discussion.

2

APA wrote

Just fuck all the way off, A_Zed. Can't hurt your brand I suppose?

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

When you are interested in an actual dialogue, perhaps we will speak then. I had hoped this would be an opportunity to. But you have no interest in a conversation, as I have said all your questions are statements. I now have no interest in talking to you. So leave me alone, and go preach to someone else.

0

APA wrote (edited )

"You have obviously already cast judgement irregardless of who I am."

When you stop being such a coward and admit you are the scumfuck pedophile A_Zed irregardless (irregardless: https://anarchistnews.org/comment/36314#comment-36314) of your bullshit charade with numerous alts. You can't help but reference the same exact texts and opinions. You're pathetic and we see you and won't stop until you stay the fuck away from anarchist spaces.

Anyone that isn't just complicit can simply look at A_Zed's numerous comments on anarchistnews (he posts on every single post basically) with the same edgelord bullshit that he posts here.

1

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Your logic is that of criminality. You ask me to confess, I have neither sinned nor committed a crime, or at least not this sin, nor this crime. But I am an anarchist, which is to say a criminal and a sinner. I do not think you are employed by the state, but you have a cop in your mind, and a priest in your heart.

Perhaps what I have to say now will be the most proactive of all. I do not blame you for being a cop or a priest. As I have said I understand your position all to well. But I beg of you to reexamine it. But that is the extent of my sympathy.

0

APA wrote

The depth to your LARPing would be hilarious if not for the pedophilia

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

You disregard everything I have to say. You are an ideologue unable to see beyond the empty words you preach. If I could have sympathy for your obsession with justice, it ends with this ideological worship of it.

I beg you tell me, what will come of your holy crusade? Will you kill all those you disagree with? Or simply lock them away? Perhaps the newest tool of capital, that of the analyst, shall be turned to your own use?

How can you dress up your crusade as anarchist? All I see is a Christian.

0

APA wrote

Translation.

Woe is I! How much thou doth protest mine pedophilia like wretched houndes yowling at waxing moons in longing wait for supper!

And scene.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Your words are empty. You weaponize them to try and silence those you disagree with. I acknowledge my words are just as harsh, but I do not leave them empty. You do not respond to what I say. You are immune to any critique, and isolated your thoughts to keep them pure. To share them, to answer my questions, would open you to scrutiny.

0

APA wrote

Refusing to feed your troll nature by engaging in discourse with you will not happen. We do not dialog with enemies of anarchy, you pedophile scum, we smash them.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

How do you smash these enemies of anarchy? With the state? Or just the cop in your head?

Who determines who these enemies of anarchy are? How does one know if their heart is pure enough to enter the kingdom, I mean anarchy of god?

0

APA wrote

We realize it may be hard for you to understand what smashing the state and authoritarians is since the only thing you like to smash is underage children.

To answer your other question: anarchists. Anarchists determine who the enemies of anarchy are, you scumfuck, authoritarian pedophile.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I think it is funny you bring this punitive attitude to me, when many other leftist priests would be quick to condemn you for how often you misgender people. They'll hang you with your own rope.

0

APA wrote

Signaling out to leftists to rush to your defense by pretending to not be making a mockery of gender is not the sign of a nihilist or a gender nihilist. It's the sign of a desperate scumfuck in panic mode.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I don't pretend, I shit on the leftists alter of gender, just as much as your alter of justice. Im just warning you that you will be the target of their moral crusade just as you have made me the target of yours.

1

APA wrote

LMAO. If only you cared this much about the wellbeing of the children your pedophilia advocates for abusing.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Your other cruel words and accusations I can brush off, but this is deeply insulting. I was abused as a child because of many of these instituions detailed in this piece (and others not mentioned), that is why I shared it, because youth liberation is am important topic to me, not in the abstract, but in my lived experiences.

If you want to lump yourself in with them go ahead, you have already lumped yourself in with the priests and the cops. What is a teach if not the mixture if both? A parent but a prison guard who never goes home.

Eat shit.

0

APA wrote

Gee! This is exactly A_Zed's story too! What a coincidence!

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Perhaps i should get in contact with A_zed, you paint this person as much more respectable then yourself.

0

APA wrote

What a coincidence that both you and A_Zed disappear at the exact same time from both websites. Hopefully it's tragic news and you've fucked off forever.

1

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Personally I don't think this text rejects science entirely, but I do reject science myself. I also do not think the text is saying that psychology has not changed since the 60's, but it's roots (or genealogy), like the roots of criminology, have not changed.

Much like the piece on how parents are a conflict of interest, similarly I don't care what psychologists have to say about children as they are a conflict of interest.

3

RedSimone wrote (edited )

but I do reject science myself

OK. Well, I don't. I think science is pretty good thing and has taken us away from superstition and religious thinking. But if you have something better than scientific method as a way to prove facts, then that's great.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote (edited )

You completely changed your response so I deleted my original one. My rejection of science is just that, a rejection of fact, of Truth. Science is little more then the construction of capitalist, and/or modernist, reality, it serves the same function as that of catholicism for the construction of Feudal, and or traditional, reality. It's no wonder why today's atheists are the most religious people. The belief in God has simply shifted to a devotion to institutions.

3