ArbitraryHuman

3

ArbitraryHuman wrote

I remember telling a group of friends two years or so ago that I was “an American nationalist,” that I was “neither left nor right,” and that “the government needs a complete overhaul” (keep in mind that this was kinda sorta bullshit—I still thought of myself as a Democrat then). Looking back on that, the apparent radical centrism/pseudo-fashiness(?) that I expressed is extremely worrying, not just for the people I may have influenced at the time but as a parallel to that which other teens are going through. If I could say anything to my younger self, it would be simply, “Buy a copy of the Communist Manifesto right fucking now.”

2

ArbitraryHuman wrote

I feel like this would be a rather clunky way of concealing one’s identity—it’s not exactly one of those things that would help you blend into the crowd. Rather, it would serve to make you stand out, both to people around you and the cameras. Even if the cameras can’t see your face, the reflected light of the glasses would certainly bring other people’s eyes to it.

6

ArbitraryHuman wrote (edited )

Time is certainly not meaningless. It would take time to get every human off the planet if it is to die, more time than we have now. It is time that defines the human species--our ancestors of many thousand years ago you may not have called "the most advanced life-forms on the planet."

Stating that everything on the planet is a failure because it hasn't evolved to our level is like saying that anarchism doesn't work because no anarchist territory has ever lasted for more than a few years. You once again fail to take into consideration the dimensions of time and evolution--both natural and of the artificial kind--and their great effect on our entire existance.

7

ArbitraryHuman wrote

We would of course would not 'take over' other planets with advanced life on them, but anarchists don't believe in borders. There's no reason we can't co-exist with other advanced lifeforms.

As you may note on a rereading of my post, I did not mention advanced life on other planets.

We're the only intelligent lifeform that evolved on it and thus, the only lifeform of consequence.

Yet it took evolution millions of years to create all of the myriads of species on this planet--and you would do away with those millions of years for 99% of them because you simply don't give a damn?

7

ArbitraryHuman wrote (edited )

The rock was not engineered solely for the purpose of nurturing humankind. It's a rock, remember--you're beginning to sound a little religious yourself.

Plus, spreading across the universe (assuming we would make "colonies" everywhere we landed) sounds very very close to imperialism. But, of course, if there are no other humans on the planet, it can't be morally wrong to take it over, amirite?

7

ArbitraryHuman wrote

If you examine all environmentalism, including green anarchism, it eventually reduces to this: a utility-value of "nature" that is positive, and a utility-value of "humans" that is negative. All environmentalism is ideologically anti-human (it accidentally is instrumentally pro-human in some cases, but not in most).

You do realize that most environmentalism attempts to prolong the lifespan of the earth so that we may live for as long as we can on it before things go sideways, yes?

People matter more than big floating rocks. Anarchism is a pro-worker (people) movement. Primitivists aren't anarchists.

The "big floating rock" is our home planet. If you kill the Earth (which, if you didn't notice, is an analogy for making it a barren wasteland of a planet that cannot support life), we'll have to jump to another planet, and will have basically killed off every species on Earth before we leave it. Does that not strike any negative chord with you?

1

ArbitraryHuman wrote

All those crystals and herbal scents and pendants and body-paints you buy come from petty-bourgeois vendors, btw. It's nothing but frivolous consumerism mixed with superstition.

Since when has every leftist on this board bought any of these things regularly? I certainly don't.

This is really the first time in my life where I feel oppressed for being an atheist. The amount of spirituality here that makes me police myself in what I say is unbearable. I made someone cry the other day for saying in response to how they felt compelled to do activism because the earth wants them to, "The earth doesn't care about you because it has no feelings to care about you. The earth simply is." I don't know what's going to happen when I tell them they are privileged for being religio/spiritual.

I myself am an atheist, yet I have not encountered such spirituality on this site, nor have I ever felt oppressed by an overwhelming support for spirituality (which, so far, seems to me to be solely your own problem). Again: who, exactly, qualified you to make such generalizations about the rest of us?

Sure, the metals exploited to build wind and solar create toxic environments for those communities. But if those communities owned the means of production they wouldn't make it so toxic to begin with and could mine the metals in a safer way.

...not really. If the communities owned the means of production, there would still be the laborious process of figuring out how to make it less toxic; the mining is not toxic itself simply because capitalism exists. If capitalism were overthrown, I'm sure that the people would try to find ways to make it less toxic, but you have disregarded the fact that this would take more than just overthrowing capitalism. There's a lot of extra effort that needs to be put in for a non-toxic method to be created and implemented.

6

ArbitraryHuman wrote (edited )

"Of course I do not need any policy protection from a (virtually unknown) website that is moderated and visited by unabashed radical racists. So you too think that two wrongs make a right."

If you'd like to see an actual website that is moderated and visited by unabashed radical racists, I suggest you take a trip down to Stormfront (A.K.A. Nazi heaven). You seem to be under the impression that either you are being discriminated against because of your race, or that you are merely extremely worried about it happening in the future. The first, if I am correct in my guess, is completely incorrect. I am not discriminating against you because you're white, nor are anyone else. If you believe that just because we criticize your suggestion on discrimination policy on this site that we are somehow discriminating against you, it'd be better if you left Raddit now. This is not a Maoist site, this is not an AnCom site, this is not a LibSoc site. This is a radical leftist site. That means that we accept all forms of radical leftists, and believe me when I say that many of the different forms do not get along well with each other. Criticism is inevitable, and if you can't handle that...well, I'll leave the conclusion up to you. If my second guess is correct, please see below:

"Plus, if they [white people] are on this site, odds are that they've realized this fact [that they're highly privileged] already and are trying to escape it. It would be simply idiotic, if this was the case, for anyone to pour hate or discrimination onto them, seeing as they're actively trying to work towards an egalitarian vision that would in essence negate the very nature of their privilege in a new society. It would be like an AnCom hating Kropotkin for coming from a royal family. Such hate and discrimination, being by necessity of its existence on this site fanatic and illogical, would not require laws for a swift punishment (while indeed not official in its capacity) to be enacted."

5

ArbitraryHuman wrote (edited )

"Normal white persons" are already quite privileged enough as it is. Plus, if they're on this site, odds are that they've realized this fact already and are trying to escape it. It would be simply idiotic, if this was the case, for anyone to pour hate or discrimination onto them, seeing as they're actively trying to work towards an egalitarian vision that would in essence negate the very nature of their privilege in a new society. It would be like an AnCom hating Kropotkin for coming from a royal family. Such hate and discrimination, being by necessity of its existence on this site fanatic and illogical, would not require laws for a swift punishment (while indeed not official in its capacity) to be enacted. White rich men, on the other hand, will always be railed against, seeing as it is their riches that confine the rest of the world to starvation and poverty, a crime that we as radicals cannot accept.

2

ArbitraryHuman wrote

I would strongly agree with A and B, but I feel that B is nearly impossible at this point in time--women have been mistreated for so long and in so many myriads of ways I can't comprehend quite what to do in terms of making up for that other than levelling the social status of men and women and conditioning our behavior to apply to this balance.

In general this topic kinda confuses me, and I'm not too well-read in terms of feminism to boot, so if there is some kind of viable retribution I've missed, please point it out to me.