Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fortmis wrote

People do away with whatever they perceive as toxic / oppressive / capitalistic in nature about their lives, but don't replace it with an alternative -- their M.O., or identity becomes completely antithetic. There is no growth, only the illusion of growth through a constant stream of rejecting things.

3

SnowCode wrote

Oh OK. Can you give an example of that?

What I meant by deconstructing norms and stuff is all for being able to communicate more clearly and improve relationships (for instance, when you let go of the norms about how a romantic relationship should look like, then you are able to communicate more clearly to people you love and thus have much better and healthier relationships).

3

fortmis wrote

Hmmm ok for example, in terms of relationships, people will do away with the assumption that monogamy is the default in a healthy romantic situation and that it's the only way of showing true love and loyalty to someone.. etc... we all know the drill lol... but instead of building up a healthy working alternative -- open relationships take a lot of damn work -- they just say "we're not monogamous" and wipe their hands like ok we're done here, this relationship is officially free of all oppression!! ... Am I making sense?

for instance, when you let go of the norms about how a romantic relationship should look like, then you are able to communicate more clearly to people you love and thus have much better and healthier relationships

Yes, for sure, but in relation to what I just wrote, do you see how some people stop at letting go of norms and don't put the same energy into developing these new clearer, more authentic ways of communicating?

1

SnowCode wrote

Oh, you mean people pretending to have good relationships and communication but actually not doing anything?

3

fortmis wrote (edited )

ya that's one way of putting it hahah for sure -- and it can extend beyond that -- to people who pretend to be anti-hierarchical but manipulate power imbalances all over the place to their benefit -- or people who claim to be environmental activists but live super wasteful lives.

3

SnowCode wrote (edited )

I see. That wouldn't really be what I would call "inefficency", that's closer to straight up hypocrisy tbh.

In the case I was talking about, I was thinking about a friend of mine (that might actually see this message at some point idk), who was basically seen as inefficient because he didn't want to conform to the group (those so called "anarchists" there actually are just plain assholes and hypocrites claiming to be anarchists but acting in the absolute opposite way with people part of their group)

2

fortmis wrote

sure ya (also I just edited my comment to include more examples fyi) -- I think it comes from the same root problem of focusing on the dismantling part and stalling the process before the innovation part.
of course i don't like using "efficiency" as any remotely useful way of measuring value / progress / etc in relation to how people live their lives... it just got me thinking...

2

SnowCode wrote

Yes I saw your edit :)

However I don't think this count as "deconstruction" at all, if one change nothing in their way of thinking, communicating, etc; how can one claim to have deconstructed anything in the first place?

I can hardly see deconstruction and re-building as being two separate actions, to me re-building is the act of deconstruction itself.

2

fortmis wrote

Maybe we just agree to disagree on that point because I see them as different -- mostly because I have seen so many situations where there is only deconstruction and no re-building. Only absence of things, no imaginative thinking -- only a lack of bad things and not a proliferation of new good things...

1

roanoke9 wrote (edited )

Can you give an example interpersonally, of an absence of something? I agree with snowcode I think, because I don't see how your point is anything but wordplay. An absence of a rock on my front steps is different than the presence of a rock on my steps. But the absence of hierarchy in a relationship? That would be the presence of anarchy in a relationship, end of story imo. Now, claiming there is an absence of hierarchy or presence of anarchy in a relationship (saying we're not monogamous but not doing it, that might be flirting with the idea of anarchy in relationships, which is a seperate issue from this presence/absence dichotomy.

Or this is just misunderstanding- because unless the work is put in to develop better communication rather than defaulting to normative role filling, then hierarchy is not reduced or removed.

This discussion probably deserves its own thread btw.

1