CaptainACAB

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by Blurp2 in Anarchy at the Source by Blurp2

"Putting anarchism into practice" - doesn't this imply that anarchism is a system?

No, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

If the commonality between every strain of anarchism is a desire to live without Capitalism and the state, then anarchism is a negation of the current state of affairs. Putting it into practice is merely the means of realizing that goal; of course, this is a point of contention between social anarchists and what Bookchin called "lifestylists". Most users here are the latter, so mass social upheaval and system building isn't something we're into. Instead, we believe that anarchy is best achieved on a smaller scale (not necessarily on an individual scale; all anarchy is good. The state can infiltrate organizations easily, but tight-knit groups and individual actors? Not so much.): whether that's through doing crime, growing food, or what have you; putting anarchism into practice, to us, simply means doing what you can to negate the power that systems have over you, whether it's short term or long term.

2

CaptainACAB wrote

"Treason" is betraying "your" country's government. You owe it allegiance because...you said you did when you were born, I guess? I don't get jingoism/patriotism.

"Revolution" entails a change in who's in charge, it's not inherently an anarchist sentiment; some would argue that the fact that it generally puts people into power means that revolutions aren't anarchist at all.

Putting anarchism into practice can be considered an act of treason; but not all treason is anarchism, especially when it's to form a new power structure.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

Some people like neat conclusions for unknown reasons. You fight the "bad guys", fix the world, and live happily ever after. We live in a work of fiction with neat little endings and a clean, visible, all-encompassing narrative to get there. No one wants to talk about mundane details like whether or not their proposed system will just relapse like most revolutions, that's just "nihilistic" or something. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to be the general mindset behind organization and blueprints that map out every aspect of life under an unprecedented political system, they don't think these methods are broken.

We're all pawns that need to follow sets of instructions written by some pedantic nerd who read a lot of books but doesn't understand that humans aren't mindless carbon copies of each other.

If this seemed like rambling, it probably was because I'm tired and am going to bed after submitting it.

8

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to by joemushroom

Yeah.

I hate waiting for food, I hate eating around strangers, and I hate the forced social interaction.

Both of my parents have worked in the food service industry (my Dad never really stopped until recently), so I sympathize with the staff and try to be as polite as possible.

My family doesn't eat out that often, so it's typically for a "special occasion"; meaning it's wrought by obligation and social ritual.

I do like cooking for my family, though I can't be as experimental as I'd like.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by AshleyAshley in :'( by quangli

Fool is fine, I think; "imbecile" is a term typically used to denigrate someone's intelligence (which is a definite no-no here) and has had historical use with psychiatrists that believed that IQ was a valid measurement to define someone within the range of 26-50; "cretinism" is a medical condition.

Good rule of thumb: if it's a word or sentiment that insults someone's cognitive ability, it's ableist.

6

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to fixed by lastfutures

I mean, I would've left "A baby" uncrossed; "infant" sounds too clinical, whereas "baby" actually invokes some form of parental instinct.

Anyway, the media is shit, newspeak is shit, and I hate everything.

9

CaptainACAB wrote

I...I'm just trying to figure out what the dog drawing post is supposed to prove.

Does me liking a different art style mean I'm less fit to control my life?

Pretty sure Hitler said some shit like "anyone who draws a green sky and blue grass should be shot".

Anyway, Direct Democracy doesn't work and any anarchist who decries extremism is a cop.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Engels and Marx unwittingly cursed Stirner when they drew that doodle and wrote a whole novel about why he's poopy-head respectively. The latter gave him posthumous attention and wider audience and the former gave us a visual representation of an idea, giving way to memes. The end result is that Stirner gained an audience that regularly does the thing that he criticized the most viciously; condemning him to an ironic hell (assuming the afterlife is anything more than a coping mechanism crafted by mortals who are aware of their own mortality).

5

CaptainACAB wrote

I just read the essay; no real problem with it, though I feel like I've read similar ideas before. Maybe there was another discussion here that you've participated in that involved ethics and you've made your position before. I dunno, I haven't read many texts related to ethics or morality.

Anyway, the anarcho-marxist-leninists don't get that language is malleable and that rules pertaining to words and definitions are more like guidelines ; redefining words is a common practice, you ever notice how slang exists? What good is their academic elitism if they can't even use your definitions to criticize your essay? This mode of thinking where you're forced to abide solely by your own definition of things is an inflexible one, and bleeds into an inability to make a worthwhile critique. Even if people don't give a shit about their own contradictory beliefs for the most part, it's far more effective than a Christian going to a Pagan and saying "bruh, you're a fucking heathen" and expecting anyone who isn't already a Christian, or at least anti-Pagan, to agree. It doesn't persuade anyone and that's what these types are all about, so what the fuck is this other than circle jerking?

Yeah, I know I'm doing the same thing, but I'm aware of it and pointing it out, so from a MORAL standpoint, I'm somehow better.

6

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in Morality Vs. Ethics by ziq

So-called "high-functioning sociopaths" can follow existing moral codes or make up their own for purely pragmatic reasons.

Furthermore, there are 2 types of empathy and different subsets of neurodivergence is marked by the lack of one of them.

Cognitive empathy is the ability to recognize and understand another's emotional state; people in the autism spectrum, bipolar people, and people with Borderline personality disorder lack it.

Emotional Empathy is the ability to share the emotional experiences of others, being affected by them and being able to respond with an appropriate emotion; antisocial, narcissistic, schizophrenic, and people with schizoid personality disorder lack it. Keep in mind that the last two are far more likely to be victimized. They might "care" about ethics in the same way most people care about etiquette: a breach might be embarrassing, but it ain't the worst thing.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to Morality Vs. Ethics by ziq

Alright, so I haven't read the essay yet, but I've had some thoughts in my head for a while based on the title alone that I just need to express.

So I define ethics, presumably in the same way most do, as the study of what is "right" or "wrong" in an individual and/or collective sense. When an individual has a personal sense of "right" or "wrong", they have a conscience; if you have the ability to feel guilt or shame, you have a conscience (doesn't mean you're a "good" person, watch out for that assertion). Following your conscience consistently, you have what is called integrity (this also doesn't not mean you're a "good" person, just a consistent one). When one attempts to externalize their conscience in the form of laws or social mores, it becomes morality (by my definition of it, anyway). This means that "good" and "evil" are subjective and that attempting to quantify even common ideas about them is as ridiculous as saying what food "objectively" tastes the best; consensus doesn't determine truth and trying to play number games with ethical questions is nonsense.

In conclusion, just do whatever you feel like, you were probably going to anyway.

6

CaptainACAB wrote

I feel individualist anarchism is simply the nihilistic form of ancap ideology.

Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He was a natural rights-type of individualist anarchist; also an abolitionist and socialist. His writing might be of some interest to you if you want to see a perspective on individualism that isn't nihilistic and more compatible with your worldview.

Ancoms like me are delusionally committed to the ability of groups to solve these problems of our existence, and I am aware of the problems of this after talking to so many on this website, although I think I am coming at the fundamental questions still quite different than many individualist. this, i think, is mostly due to my firmly social materialist analysis, which came from years of debating/attempting to understanding MLs and liberals from an ancom perspective.

Your perspective is valid and valued.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

It's pretty hard to pin down:

Ancaps have their own definitions for words that everyone else uses differently: leftists & anarchists don't have the same definition of what Capitalism as them; ancaps seem to see it as synonymous with trade. They're also pro-industrialist in the sense that it's doubtful any of them actually have taken the time to look through the damaging effects of industrialization; they take the whole technological progress thing as a given. Ancaps are only opposed to the existence of the state and a few of them can be describe as "rugged" individualists.

Individualist anarchism is more of an umbrella term than its own thing; mutualism can be considered an individualist school of thought, but some consider it a social one. So there is overlap between mutualism and individualism; some ancoms consider themselves individualists and individualists aren't necessarily opposed to community, just wary of it having the potential to become an authority/power structure; unlike "rugged" individualists, they aren't obsessed with competition and are pretty open to cooperation. Individualist anarchists are, like social anarchists, opposed to the state, capitalism, and dominance.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

This question kind of makes me think of how the idea of responsibility vastly mutates when taken from a vacuum of at least 2 people to civilization as a whole: in the former example, it's pretty easy to argue that the notion of "blame" lies on the laurels of who's "at fault"; something that a nihilist would reject on the grounds that one can only be considered "responsible" for the actions of the only being one has any real control over. In other words, you're only "at fault" for your own misfortune if you knowingly screw yourself over; with external circumstances and people not factoring in at all. For the latter, blame is easier to dole out due to how dependent we are on one another and how interconnected we are to vast populations across vast distances; for example, it would be correct to blame a ruler for any deaths that occur due to the inherently violent and oppressive nature of the state (though if one does not also blame the state actors involved, it is incorrect).

TLDR;

Does nihilistic thoughts imply blaming a victim for not having an ability to defend themselves?

No, because blaming implies the belief in a "moral failure". I feel like nihilists are aware that people don't actually have any control over external factors (including other people). The nihilist notion of: "You only have rights that you are capable to defend" is a critique of the concept of rights.

6

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

The conscious egoist, in contrast, is not bound by any demand for renunciation of domination and if it is within his competence he will dominate others if this is in his interest.

Yeah? Even if everyone wasn't an egoist, people typically dislike being dominated; so it would be in the interest of the dominated to render their rulers unable to dominate. Welcome to the concept of "conflicting interests". Framing the desire to dominate as a "natural tendency" is to surrender whatever conception one has of one's Ego to the abstract of "hUMaN NAturE". Way to go, you've become the humanist to anarchist's Christian.

8