Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DarkArmillary wrote

Reply to comment by bloodrose in OK Bookchin by zoochotic

These are mostly fair questions; the answer to all of them is 'no.'

Though they don't get at the main reason this is baseless: it's just anecdotal.

Anecdotes can have power, especially as they accumulate and become a pattern. As anecdotal evidence however, it's nothing I've ever seen or experienced, nor heard others raise as a problem in particular. I've heard and seen the term used on quite a few occasions, with specific meaning, none of them insulting of queer people at all. If there are any articles or perhaps an array of screenshots that demonstrate the term has been used to denigrate people on the basis of their sexuality, then I'm open to considering that, if it exists.

As a term or a word I don't hold it especially "dear." But I do advocate for accuracy and clarity in speech for many terms.

0

bloodrose wrote

I've never actually seen the term used before at all. I just looked it up. It looks like it was coined to take umbrage with primitivists and individualists. Interesting.

I, too, used to have an instant distrust of anecdotes. I have found that instead of responding based on that distrust, I prefer to ask for more details. Not every lived experience comes with ample evidence. I find especially with anarchism, a lot of the experience with anarchism happens offline in group projects, etc.

3

greyface wrote

lot of the experience with anarchism happens offline in group projects, etc.

But according to this kid if it's not in a book it isn't real.

3

bloodrose wrote

I mean, if you want me to go full primmie, I can discuss how this is an issue caused by written language and the move towards the reverence of symbolism over actual life. We see a real change in culture when language gets written down from people that value the point of a story to people who only value the accuracy and veracity of a story. But that would be boring to everyone, I'm sure, lol.

4

greyface wrote

Lifestylism meaning anti-queerness is a pattern. You're just the one perpetuating it.

3

bloodrose wrote

Do you have any examples you would like to share? I've never seen this used before and am new to understanding it.

1

ploopt wrote

This is not exactly what you're asking for, but looking at this passage from Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, it's not hard to see how this happens:

Consciously or not, many lifestyle anarchists articulate Michel Foucault’s approach of ‘personal insurrection’ rather than social revolution, premised as it is on an ambiguous and cosmic critique of power as such rather than on a demand for the institutionalized empowerment of the oppressed in popular assemblies, councils, and/or confederations.

translation: join the vanguard or STFU

3

bloodrose wrote

Thank you for the translation. I swear my eyes started to bleed at the end of that sentence! hahaha

2

DarkArmiIIary wrote

Sorry, I don't keep track of everything a transphobic person says to me. Asking me to show proof of people mistreating me before my words can mean anything is strange.

3

bloodrose wrote

Was honestly curious about what that would look like. Thanks for explaining to me off-thread.

2

DarkArmiIIary wrote

Lifestylism is literally anything that doesn't follow the party line. Being gay or being trans is viewed as a lifestyle by bigoted people, just like Dark over here.

2

DarkArmiIIary wrote

Only state approved 'facts,' are allowed. It is now illegal to talk about one's personal experinces.

1