AnarcheAmor

AnarcheAmor wrote

Well from the few pics of her still accessible through Google, I reverse image searched and found nothing. The only place with hopeful results had a paywall, everything else came up with next to nothing outside of a repost of one of her risqué pics. So basically whoever the real person is doesn't have an online presence at all, at least not anymore, or they still do but pictures of them are just hard to come by (possibly hosted in a site with a paywall), or these pics were privately shared between her and Lloyd. Alternatively, the pics could have been edited or photoshopped such that the person in the pics isn't real. So the only real hope of verifying all this for sure is that someone comes forward and says "hey that's me" or "hey, I know that person". Now the silver-lining here is that pics were exchanged in DMs between her and others so somebody has more stuff with her on it. Also rip my search history.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote

Ah yes, anarcho-policing. Gotta love it when it happens because everybody's fine and dandy until it turns out that they have disagreements. All I know is that I find myself not really caring enough how people define their anarchism, I just hate the constant advocacy of one anarchism over another or attempts to define what all anarchists should or shouldn't do. Like if you aren't willing to go to war for it, don't waste your breath arguing about it and if you are willing to go to war for it then I think you need to reconsider some things.

4

AnarcheAmor wrote

I would like to add the note that the "boys will be boys" thing is itself a form of adultification as it's a phrase that's meant to validate adult male traits displayed by young boys. It also comes with an infantilization component when the word "boy" is directed towards adult men especially if they are a minority as means of belittling the person.

2

AnarcheAmor wrote

You're gonna end up feeling that way about a lot of usage of PoC anarchist writings simply because voting debates tend to devolve into "who can better use women, BIPOC, LGBT+, and disabled people as weapons and shields for your position?" Now, I would argue that anarchists are less to blame for this as voters were the first to bring up privilege to delegitimize anti-voter sentiments and anarchists, in response, have to use those groups' experiences and perspectives to make their point.

8

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

I think you're mistaking the what Loona is talking about with conversion. A love that transforms doesn't require a bible to read and a preacher to interpret it for you. There is no call-to-action surrounding organized movement nor criticisms surrounding your actions or lack thereof. A love that transforms simply loves you and you change because you've been loved. It's you being with someone and that person makes you feel free.

7

AnarcheAmor wrote (edited )

Just asked to be friends lol I think she thought I was a plant.

Edit: I'm gonna add here that from my cursory knowledge of Twitter, there are some rules of engagement that you have to follow in order to be considered mutuals with someone so I was probably doomed from the start.

1

AnarcheAmor wrote

Reply to comment by lentils in by !deleted38454

But it is very egoist to just decide for yourself what values you want to live by as long as those values don't become what defines you and to do things according to those values as long as they serve your own ends.

2

AnarcheAmor wrote

Reply to comment by lentils in by !deleted38454

Nope. There are only two commandments that Christians are required to follow: Love God and love others like yourself. These two commandments are actually regular verses that Jesus put his own spin on and just claimed to be commandments (something the law he is supposed to be a representative of says you aren't allowed to do) so, at this point, the only sacred duty you have is whatever allows you to love (your) God, love yourself, and love others.

And this is without mentioning anything about how the foundations for Christianity as we know it are so weak that the idea of it having "sacred duties" is full-on bs at this point.

3

AnarcheAmor wrote (edited )

Reply to by !deleted38454

The quick answer is: yes.

The long answer is: yes but you're missing the point of egoism if you have to find support from the Bible or from shit Stirner wrote. If egoism fulfills you in some way and Christianity does too then be both.

5