Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

milquetoaster wrote

"I lean towards left-libertarian/libertarian" or "I take things issue by issue" are the standard weasel phrases I use around liberal and conservative coworkers who must know whose side I'm on. I usually prefer not to use labels since they all get associated with the worst baggage and discussing issues on a case by case basis seems to be more effective.

4

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I use those weasel phrases as well. Yeah, they're weasel phrases, but at the same time, I can't find any words that fully encompasses what I believe. Suffice to say, I believe in the worth and value of all humans, regardless of age, gender, orientation, or beliefs, and I am opposed to anything that oppresses people, keeps them from fully living their lives as who they are, so long as it harms no one else in the process. As far as I'm concerned, if a neighbor wants to practice in polygamy or worship Satan, do drugs, or anything like that, so long as it doesn't threaten my life or anyone unfortunate to be in their general vicinity, go right ahead.

And I believe that both Corporations and the State are forms of oppression that need to go away. I believe that tribal band-style living is the best kind of living and really the only one that works. Humans can naturally organize themselves and take care of each other, without a massive State breathing down their necks. We are inherently wired for altruism; we want to look out for and take care of each other.

I also believe that diversity is strength, so having everyone live the same way, whether they live in the Arctic Circle or Arizona, is a really dumb idea that will collapse pretty quickly once the oil has run out. I also believe that the basic necessities of life--food, water, shelter, and medicine--are, well, necessities, and shouldn't be locked up, because of someone's lacking pieces of paper.

I suppose you can apply whatever labels you'd like. I'm kind of in a similar position when it comes to my religious beliefs in that Christian or any one denomination, seems to fully capture the scope of my beliefs.

4

AngryData wrote

That matches up pretty well with my own beliefs the only difference is I personally think there needs to be a 'small' form of a larger state, that helps direct larger public works projects, organizes disaster relief, and help manage other large infrastructure projects, but knocking out pretty much all its other duties/powers.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I figure when it comes to the larger scale, the various tribes will come together, unite, and form loose, Iroquois-Confederacy style alliances, where they trade, help each other out, and work together, but on the whole, each tribe maintains their sovereignty and will be able to conduct their group according to their laws/beliefs, so long as their activities don't harm anyone or interfere with anyone else's.

4

HiddenDeftElm wrote

I definitely find that explaining your ideology is better than giving it a lable even if it has a one. Any time i say anarcho-communist, the less politicaly aware just run with the communist bit and think Russia and WW2. By then they have made their mind up and no matter what you say to correct it thats wat they think of. So i explain first.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

All of them! Words don't ever seem to me adequate to the reality they pretend to represent. Even when you have a pretty good word, often people don't understand it like you do.

That said, some are pretty useful to delineate from other people in the world and in our crowds, even vaguely: including anti-authoritarian, intersectional, and decolonial.

4

surreal wrote

Conscious

4

leftous wrote (edited )

So many times I want to say "woke" without invoking the colloquial "woke". I guess you can say I'm very woke when it comes to using the word "woke".

4

SouthsideGrackles wrote

Anarchist. Squirm as I might, it is still an ideology in the end. In truth I have affinity and similarities with a lot of anarchists, and that's it. It is easier to just say anarchist though.

2

dele_ted wrote

The difference between anarchism and other ideologies is that there is no central author. It's simply a concept that's developed naturally. That's how i justify calling myself an anarchist.

2

robottroymacclure wrote

i dont understand what you mean when you say anarchism has no central author. could you please clarify your statement?

3

dele_ted wrote

There is no centralised manuscript, no single author who largely gave birth to the idea. The author of communism is to some degree Marx, the author of capitalism is to some degree Smith.

Anarchism does have recognized thinkers such as Kropotkin, Goldman and Bakunin, but they simply expanded upon an already existing idea.

2

robottroymacclure wrote

then whats the difference between anarchism and the natural state of being? im pretty ignorant about these subjects. thanks.

3

Dumai wrote

bisexual

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

How about pan? I like pan more than bisexual personally.

6

selver wrote

Sexual nihilist!

Sexuality labels based on gender bother me, since that's not relevant to who I'm attracted to.

4

Dumai wrote (edited )

i used to call myself pan but these days i'm less sure i fit in with how that term is used -- i'm definitely more attracted to men than others

5

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm mostly confused about who I'm attracted to but I think it potentially includes all types of genders so I've been using pan.

2

AudibleAnarchist wrote

I describe myself as gay, but a better term would probably be androphilic but I doubt most people know what that means.

2

braketheboxes wrote (edited )

Consciousness if I had to pick for a personal description but for some bullshit thing such as an interview I begrudgingly play the game and tell them some shit they'll lap up.