Recent comments in /f/propaganda

CaptainACAB wrote

Social Anarchism has always been more about getting bigger numbers than actual anarchy.

I get why they are the way they are. I can see their reasoning. I just don't see any value in watering down my beliefs to reach some mythical Least Common Denominator that'll end up just being some variation of social democracy--which is the only way that anarchism would be popular.

Also, the people who disagree with my position won't agree with me just because they read a book that I wrote explaining the ins and outs of my philosophy/politics.

You don't become your political opposite just by reading a text that happened to be adequately written (I certainly wouldn't want to ally myself with someone so easily persuaded).

If a Marxist handed me a persuasive essay about why I should be a Marxist, I'd politely take it and throw it away when they weren't looking (like I do with Christians and their seemingly endless pamphlets).

"Introductory material" is arbitrary; a lot of anarchists seem to go out of their way to explain that their position is this and not that or define words to make sure that the reader knows that they're saying that instead of this. They like to say why [thing anarchists hate] instead of just "[thing anarchists hate] should be abolished". Almost like they're used to having to dispel misinterpretations and misunderstandings of their positions and desires.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

I have no clue how they came to the conclusion that ziqs texts are hard to understand. Honestly when I tried to get into anarchy I was really discouraged by the bread book, communist manifesto, or bookchin. Tho reading ziq and c4ss was very easy to understand. Like how could "anarchy is" be a difficult anarchist Text? And regrettably greasers are you a anarchist was a good text. But the recommendations on Reddit were super confusing and unconvincing.

Idk leftist anarchism gives people nothing but hope and join a org. While post leftism is a lifestyle to improve ones life. Hence why I've only found one enticing. Do people really think reading the bread book is more helpful than a lifestyle at philosophy to help free ones mind and help one learn how to live without work and rent?

I have no idea where this idea comes from that traditional leftist texts from 100 years ago could possible be more approachable than ziq. When ziq I'd literally top 5 most easy to understand anarchist writers.

7

kinshavo OP wrote

Reply to comment by Majrelende in Save the Forest! by kinshavo

Yes, this is misanthropic take and it is problematic...

Maybe that's one of the few links between eco-extremism and ecofascism. I guess some nihilists also spouse a certain level of Misanthropy.

I actually I am embarrassed to have this as a sticker lol - and this was at a table at a common vegan fair, one of those full of liberal and apolitical vegans

3

Majrelende wrote

This looks to me rather like ecofascism-- unless it's a very subtle allusion about destroying the civilised "human" nature. But since this is in propaganda, and most people will not be going that far, I don't think anyone without an already developed understanding about the human within civilisation, and anti-civilised philosophy in general, will take it to mean anything except what it literally means.

2

bloodrose wrote

Reply to by !deleted38111

It has really ruined movies and entertainment. Everything is a military thing now. I remember a few years back I saw a preview for a tv show about witches and it was alternate history and I thought it was gonna be this badass fantasy tv show. Watched the pilot. It was a fucking military show. It was so obviously propaganda and was nothing like the trailer at all. I was so sad. I grew up watching She-Ra and loving all things sword and sorcery and man, those fuckers have even taken fantasy away from us.

3

ziq OP wrote

Russia's president is already a master of "whataboutism" – indeed, it is practically a national ideology. (Whenever visiting western heads of state complain of Russia's alleged democratic failings, Putin points to their own record with the words: "What about …") --Luke Harding

5

Fool wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted31767 in by !deleted31767

The squirrels ride tanks into battle. Charge!

🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️
🎽🎽🎽🎽🎽🎽

Hmm, something is not quite right.

2

Fool wrote

Reply to by !deleted31767

I think that recruitment drive tanked.

βœ¨πŸŽ‰πŸ‘ Thanks for your applause. I'll be here all week until deleted. πŸ‘πŸŽ‰βœ¨

3

nulloperation wrote (edited )

Reply to by !deleted8445

Correction to last paragraph: A billionaire's minutes long joyride to the edge of space create more carbon emissions than 1 billion individuals each produce in their entire lifetimes.

It's still outrageous but let's do math right. The last paragraph reads like it is the sum of their emissions, and it's confusing when it's saying that I read it right when I didn't.

4