Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zoom_zip wrote (edited )

every avenue of “support” for people having mental health crises is backdropped with the threat that violence will be done to you just for expressing your feelings. that you will be hospitalised, sectioned, medicated, imprisoned, have the police called on you; that it will linger as a stigma against you re: how you are viewed by employers, how doctors will address your future concerns, how the police will treat you, etc.

at their most vulnerable, the only available options for help, are all based upon the idea of submitting yourself to some institution that will strip you of your autonomy.

this is profoundly fucked up.


re questions i was asked about autonomy earlier in the week.

imo autonomy is about ensuring everyone has equal autonomy. compared to free market libertarians or whatever who seem to think autonomy means having the freedom to fuck over anyone and have slaves, and be free to exploit anything and everything without consequence or accountability.

i feel pretty okay about telling racists, transphobes, homophobes, fascists, nazis, or whoever that they are pieces of shit. i feel fine cutting them out of circles i run in, or if i am not able to, cutting myself out of those circles and going elsewhere. even if they cry “my autonomy!”, pushing back against that is self defence. i don’t want to pretend to live inside anyone else’s head, but i would guess people here generally agree with that (based on the tos and previous discussions). fascists are harmful, so we cut them out.

this doesn’t suddenly become a class issue where—oh no!—the underclass of fascists is being oppressed by the authoritarian anarchists who are stripping them of their autonomy to be racists and oppress minorities!

same view with anti-vaxxers to be honest. your choice not to vax yourself where it is available is harmful to me and others, so i cut you out. why are people calling that a class issue now? we’re just supposed to accept being harmed without defending ourselves? because you have the autonomy to make that choice, everyone else has to accept that without calling it out, even though we acknowledge that calling out other harmful behaviour is self defence.

it twists me up.

like i said in the other thread. there are plenty of critiques of the institutions that surround vaccines that are definitely problematic:

  • rich countries monopolising access to vaccines
  • corporations monopolising vaccine patterns for profit
  • vaccines being a band-aid to a problem that is man-made

so i still don’t see how antivax anarchists are separating themselves from right wing libertarian conspiracy theorists as long as your argument is “i don’t care who else i hurt as long as i have my autonomy.”

12

tubers wrote

Last night I was just thinking about how I might want to talk to a therapist about something that happened to me a few years ago, but felt like I couldn't because I was contemplating suicide at the time.

There is so much of a power imbalance when seeking treatment for mental health issues. Almost like the system is not set up to help you, but to minimize risk to society or your insurer.

7

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

have slaves

I hear this all the time but I've seen libertarians talk about how slavery is against their principles but never for it. Do you have evidence of any libertarian saying that slavery is ok?

freedom to fuck over anyone

Isn't this kinda true tho. Like me not being able to rob a bank when I need money limits my autonomy. Is it not a limit on peoples autonomy that they can't beat the shit out of Nazis without the possibility of cops incarcerating them.

I think not being able to fuck people over is a limit on autonomy.

−1

Fool wrote

Like me not being able to rob a bank when I need money limits my autonomy.

Yes, but without laws of private property, the bank isn't something which can be "robbed". Why do you want a bunch of useless paper anyway?

Is it not a limit on peoples autonomy that they can't beat the shit out of Nazis without the possibility of cops incarcerating them

I'm not sure what the argument is here? Don't start fights with cops?
I don't think they were arguing as pro-cop.

I think not being able to fuck people over is a limit on autonomy.

... Well I guess you won't mind when other people fuck you over then.

🤦🏽‍♀️

6

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

I hear this all the time but I've seen libertarians talk about how slavery is against their principles but never for it. Do you have evidence of any libertarian saying that slavery is ok?

There was a voluntaryist here that was in favor of a justice system that proposed indentured servitude if a criminal couldn't "compensate" for their crime with money. I can send you the link if you want it.

I think not being able to fuck people over is a limit on autonomy.

Yeah, I should be allowed to have slaves if I'm able to exert control over people because that's what real freedom is about. Never mind the fact that screwing people over for personal gain is a haunted mentality that is actively encouraged by capitalist culture.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

Yeah I totally believe you, there are plenty of internet weirdos. But like how does libertarian philosophy promote slavery when slavery is brought up I almost exclusively here how it's a violation of humans inherent right to their own body as their own property. Or something like that.

Question who has more autonomy in this scenario. A set of twins are going to be hatecrimed everything is the same except one twin is able to defend themselves and kill their would be assailant. The other twin beloved that learning how to fuck people over is a useless skill and died. Who has more autonomy the alive person or the dead person?

−5

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

But like how does libertarian philosophy promote slavery when slavery is brought up I almost exclusively here how it's a violation of humans inherent right to their own body as their own property.

By its nature of being a contradictory philosophy that is so compatible with the dominant ideology of neoliberalism, that the traits of both are almost indistinguishable from each other. How does a secular humanist society still allow for war and slavery? Because putting a set of ideas of how to best run a society into practice inevitably gives way to contradictions and compromises in the name of pragmatism; ask any kind of tankie, they can rage about the plight of workers all they like, but encourage any anti-worker policy enacted by their favored socialist state; assuming they give any credit to the notion at all.

Question who has more autonomy in this scenario. A set of twins are going to be hatecrimed everything is the same except one twin is able to defend themselves and kill their would be assailant. The other twin beloved that learning how to fuck people over is a useless skill and died. Who has more autonomy the alive person or the dead person?

Self defense isn't fucking people over. Framing someone who was willing to kill a person in a hate-crime and failed as a victim is weird as fuck; the only people who do that are sympathizers to that person's cause.

To actually answer your question, the one that is alive has more autonomy, obviously. In that hyper specific scenario where literally everything about these two people is the exact same save for that one thing, you've managed to prove that a person living in such a dystopian society that hate crimes are an occurrence that happen so often and to such severity that two people who are exactly the same just so happen to have the same exact thing happen to them and the only saving grace for one of them was that they managed to kill their attacker...because they decided that screwing people over is good...somehow. Yes; the person still living in a society where they are in constant danger of being murdered for who they are is freer than their exact duplicate's corpse. Slaves also have more autonomy than corpses. Zoo animals have more autonomy than a turkey sandwich.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

I see you weapons protecting minorities to attack your opponent rather than defending minorities to actually care about minorities. Guess throwing your values under the buss is worth more than critiquing people with wrong opinions correctly rather than strawmen. Jesus

−3

CaptainACAB wrote

I see you weapons protecting minorities to attack your opponent rather than defending minorities to actually care about minorities.

I'm openly several minorities; don't try that vapid garbage.

Guess throwing your values under the buss is worth more than critiquing people with wrong opinions correctly rather than strawmen.

What values am I throwing away by telling you your proposed scenario is too narrow to apply in any useful way? "Critiquing people correctly", oh my fucking god; is there some sort of standardized process I have to go through in order to argue with someone? Is there some sort procedure I'm supposed to follow? What council decides this and how European are they?

Jesus

Cultural Christianity is played out.

5

Garbear104 wrote

Holy heck your a clown aint ya?

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Nah people on this site are just dorks who live lib takes.

−1

ILLA_Europe wrote

Sadly I'm coming to the same conclusion after seeing antivaccers here. Is there a better site we can use with actual leftists?

−4

zoom_zip wrote

Question who has more autonomy in this scenario. A set of twins are going to be hatecrimed everything is the same except one twin is able to defend themselves and kill their would be assailant. The other twin beloved that learning how to fuck people over is a useless skill and died. Who has more autonomy the alive person or the dead person?

this doesn’t make sense because the person trying to hatecrime is the one fucking people over, and both twins have a right to self defence which is the original point i was making. the hatecrimer’s autonomy ends when they decide to fuck a person over, so both twins can defend themselves.

3

zoom_zip wrote

i’m not going to go digging for quotes but i’m using slavery to include indentured servitude and debt bondage. sorry if that feels like an exaggeration.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

I kinda figured but in all my years deep in an cap space I never saw anyon okay with those kinda things. Maybe a few weirdos but as a critique of the philosophy is seems off base.

−1

Fool wrote

They get angry about the word slave, but Anarcho-Capitalism is literally proposing Fuedalism, I can find you some texts from Rothbard if you really want.

6

[deleted] wrote

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Yes the silk road was just intellectual posturing.

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

Nah I was talking about the drug marketplace. Dread pirate Roberts was like really into libertarianism. You cant separate the silk road drug marketplace and libertarianism.

2

mofongo wrote

I don't get your point and am unsure which silk road you're referring to.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

Uhh the online drug marketplace silk road was a pretty open libertarian experiment. Like there is a pretty cause effect relationship of drug pirate Roberts reading about Austrian economics and Rothbard and dread creating the silk road drug marketplace.

1

Fool wrote

And he got caught because he started murdering people, since his money gave him the power to do that sort of thing.

👍

Great example!

What was the point? Oh yes, Anarcho-Capitalism, so you too can murder your former friends!

6

NOISEBOB wrote

fresh dates are quite exotic to the place where i live but i just moved to "a ghetto" and there are quite a lot of non-european shops around and wow, i love fresh dates! the initial bitterness that then turns sweet is amazing!

i also like japanese pepper (which is not a pepper) and the way it numbs your tounge.

i like food.

6

Basil wrote

I'm moving across the ocean for University in a week and I'm nervous but also very excited to finally be able to leave suburbia

6

mofongo wrote

It's been a bit rainy the last few days, it hasn't help with the heat though.

I decided to start doing more strength exercise and stretches. That bit of additional effort increased my hunger by a lot, which is annoying, but I also need to break the habit of eating until I no longer feel hunger to eat until I feel full/satisfied.

I also need to add both more meat and more sources of protein to my diet. I'm too used to getting mostly carbs. There's always a huge pan of lentils/beans at home that I need to get used to eating.

4

tubers wrote (edited )

You could go for pea based protein powder in shakes.

Or tofu, tempeh, natto, tree nuts.

4

mofongo wrote

Didn't know about pea based protein powder. I'll see how it compares with soy protein, which I find expensive.

3

zoom_zip wrote

shame natto is freakin’ gross tho

2

kinshavo OP wrote

Acquired taste food are the worst hehehehe

But I heard there's good probiotics in those rotten beans

1

zoom_zip wrote

i actually don’t mind the taste. it’s the slime….. i can’t handle the slime

2

halfway_prince wrote

peanut butterrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

4

mofongo wrote

I try, I try, but I can only eat it with crackers or bread 😭

3

halfway_prince wrote

if u really trying to avoid carbs maybe get into smoothies? like just frozen banana and beanut butter is pretty dank

3

emoticons wrote

Yes! banana and peanut butter is pretty dank :D

2

whipskid wrote

That's a wonder combo but too much peanut butter is no good if you're not cooking with beans and tahini and tofu as well.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

emoticons wrote

Yes! Is so yummy :p

2

[deleted] wrote

2

emoticons wrote

wow! lol many Good peanut butters there, excited

also I forget to ask in prior comment Did you make own almond butter? i did it once and not bad but not good. Bland, i am not skill at that xD

2

existential1 wrote

Going to instill some better sleep habits starting today. We'll see how it goes.

4

ILLA_Europe wrote

Are there any leftists here who want to apply to join the ILLA?

−2

Fool wrote

Good plan!

You draw them out, we'll hide, ready to leap out when they show up.

🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️

3