Bezotcovschina

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

I really don't know, but this:

One option I've thought of is to go first, stay there for some length of time, to show them I'm leaving and maybe a sense of what it'd be like without me there. And then come back, see how they're doing, then maybe sort of, like...invite them into the car? In the hopes that maybe they take that as an invitation to come with them wherever I was the past few weeks?

sounds good enough. However this:

like...invite them into the car

might not work. I mean, the cat might want to go with you, but they instincts tell them not to get into unfamiliar enclosed spaces. I don't know how far away is your new place, but maybe moving with them by feet is an option?

Maybe, if you'll get a sense for how they feel about going with you, and moving by feet is not an option, then you might use some force to get them into a car. Honestly, I, personally, would do this.

EDIT: could you post an update when/if you'll deal with this case?

2

Bezotcovschina wrote

I think you have a lot of good points here, but I think I need something to be cleared out for me, if you don't mind:

As I see it (I might be all wrong, my understanding of the whole situation is very surfac-y), outrage to LBC is caused not because of some loosely affiliation, but because they literally published some very questionable materials. Isn't it an old good "not giving a platform to fascists"? Only question is "was it really fascism?" Again, an old good centrist argument "Where you'll draw the line?" But I understand that a lot of people equates ITS with fascists. So, isn't this outrage understandable? I'm not sure I understand attacks on other LBC authors, though.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

3

Reply to Friday Free Talk by vMU9

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

There was a lot of talks about the "Network" case this week. Huge deal. Folks are angry.

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

I don't know. As for right now I strongly oppose invite only policy. If Raddle was invite only, I, certainly, wasn't join it. Not a hug of desl, but whatever.

Dog, Ims to drunk, sorry.

5

Reply to comment by Bezotcovschina in by !deleted8205

Bezotcovschina wrote

Yeah, not having a context hurts a lot.

Initially, it seemed like Druggalo are a victum of unjustified attacks, so it was natural for me to jump in their defence.

It seems very wrong to accuse Clouds of being a kind of Titan's alt.

I don't know where to go from here.

I'ma drunk right now, so, please, everyone, forgive me for my mistakes.

I love you all, if it ever matter.

1

Reply to comment by Bezotcovschina in by !deleted8205

Bezotcovschina wrote

Ok, if the threats were real, and begun before suicide goading, then, probably, you are right. But it doesn't excuse followed attacks on ziq. ziq didn't know anything about them either.

2

Reply to comment by Bezotcovschina in by !deleted8205

Bezotcovschina wrote

Including some piece of shit in anarchism is enough to suicide goading? It's just it - shitty take on individualist anarchism. Is it even something new? Uninfomed, ignorant opinion this is. It's not a rape apologia in my opinion.

Of course, I'm not taking treats via PM and conspiracy theories into account here, because I know nothing about it.

1

Reply to by !deleted8205

Bezotcovschina wrote

I think, I need to speak up.

I don't think that the suicide goading, where justified. It was not suicide goading some rapist or even rapist apologist. It was suicide goading the person with poor literary analyse of some long ago died prick. It's clear for me, that it was started as misunderstanding and lack of will to understand from Clouds. I fail to see rapist apologia in druggalo's posts.

This, however, could be some misunderstandings on my part. u/x_x, could you show me rapist apologia in druggalo's posts?

4