CaptainACAB

CaptainACAB wrote

I don't get how you think that "I'd just break it off" or "the affair itself doesn't really solve anything" apply to real people.

For the record, I was coming at this from the perspective of "Hetero Male has an affair", because I'm not a woman and can't speak to the disparity in power or freedom when it comes to relationships. Since hetero men usually aren't as dependent on their partners, my line of thinking is that they'd have more freedom to pick and choose who they end up with.

As for why I came at it from this angle? I dunno, I just have some inclination to believe that hetero men have affairs more often based on social conditioning; I didn't actually look it up, so I could be wrong.

Not interested in scolding women or queer folk about the importance of monogamy, but I wasn't going to lead with that with the first post since it wouldn't have made for an interesting response.

1

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

I'm surprised to see all the "breach of trust" responses.

That's on me, I guess; since it's my wording specifically. The question is "What is Your Opinion on People Cheating on Their Partners?", and offers no specifics beyond that, I immediately assumed a scenario which painted the person cheating as unsympathetic. Which is unfair of me, I'll give you that. I also did not assume marriage, so any and all obligations and conditions born from that went unconsidered. Again, I considered too specific a scenario.

No one thinks the sanctity of the monogamous commitment should be interrogated a little more than that? Or the importance of a contractual obligation at all?

Hardly. If I don't want to be with someone, I'd just break it off. And I'd expect other people to do the same. Even if I'm the one being broken up with. Whatever obligation holding me back from that doesn't go away after cheating; so it doesn't strike me as a valid solution.

I mean, if we imagine all the things that can happen in something like a 9-year monogamous relationship, the fetishization of the moment of a breach of contract is odd. Isn't it even pop psychology at this point that the affair itself usually isn't the problem?

Yeah, but the affair itself doesn't really solve anything that could be wrong with said 9-year relationship. Even if it brings attention to the existence of any problems, there were probably better ways to go about it.

Besides that, I'd bet people here would agree that the breach of trust is even good in some cases when in the context of structural oppression and so on.

Yeah, but that specific scenario wasn't brought up until now. We were given a very general question and left to fill in the blanks as to specifics. Why everyone came up with the answers we did is probably worth further investigation.

2

CaptainACAB wrote

No, but I'll do it anyway since you asked.

In a context stripped of all moral judgements, trust is still an important element to human relationships; especially one that involves sexual contact, though that doesn't apply to me for reasons previously stated.

Anyway, since I'm averse to using notions of right or wrong when it comes discussing hot takes from anarchists, especially since doing it here and now would involve me defending the sanctity of monogamy, I have to use a more universal standard of stating my point: that of necessity.

Since I have the misfortune of being unable to truly discern the motives of other people, my default assumption is to assume the best but not dismiss the worst; this manifests in a shaky trust when I meet people that'll only get stronger or weaker as I get to know them. I don't want to be seen as unreliable or untrustworthy, so I try to earn good faith by not violating any trust put onto me with the expectation that others do the same. Losing faith in people is a regular occurrence for me, but losing faith in specific individuals isn't and it hurts to even think about. Since I don't often "let people in", it would sting more if my trust was squandered. This is my only way of dealing with relationships. So, yeah, breaches in trust aren't my thing.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

I'm not gonna hold anything against you.

Of course, it's easy for me to say that because we were cool before and I try to avoid drama between prominent users because I get enough social tension off of the computer, so I was never caught in the crossfire to begin with.

3

CaptainACAB wrote

I'm against breaches in trust between people out of sheer necessity.

Being ace, I don't care one way or the other when it comes to the validity of monogamy; being an egoist, I find that monogamy being the norm is overly restrictive. And many conventions surrounding that mode of relation are haunted.

Still, sneaking around sounds mentally exhausting and unnecessary to me, just go for an open relationship or something if you aren't interested in commitment.

16

CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to by !deleted33114

Why is it that whenever weirdos like you want to try punching up, you add an unnecessary quality that specifically targets disadvantaged people?

Like, if I wanted to talk shit about white men, I could do that without targeting queer/trans/disabled/homeless white men.

4

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by bloodrose in bbq by zoom_zip

"We can't judge people from the past because society's morality has marched on" is a funny because it's technically a moral relativist's take, but it's often spouted by the most reactionary moral absolutists you could ever know.

They never seem to apply it to other cultures nor do they consider it whenever social standards shift.

5

CaptainACAB wrote

Getting arrested by the police for thinking that the law of the state is open to interpretation or that you have to consent to it in order for it to be valid.

Migrating to smaller towns in large numbers to influence policy.

Tax evasion.

Being employed to teach economics.

You know, lame shit that you could only get from liberalism.

2

CaptainACAB wrote

My first reaction to this sentiment is to just assume that the person saying this wants to bring Jim Crow back or lobotomize the women in their lives.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

I started calling myself an anarchist because I didn't believe in the validity of effectiveness of any system that I knew existed, so using any of those means to realize my desires was untenable from day 1.

It's so strange to see people skip this one fundamental step.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

It's a cultural thing, to be fair to non-western neurotypicals.

Some cultures avoid eye contact because it comes off as too aggressive and others don't even have small talk as a concept.

The trick for me is focus on one specific part of the face near the eyes and occasionally go back to the eyes in 4 second intervals; sometimes I turn my head in another direction as if I noticed something for a few seconds of respite.

2

CaptainACAB OP wrote

Reply to comment by MHC in by CaptainACAB

This is "lobby", not egoism

Yet the title of the post indicated that the topic at hand was an expansion of the Egoist wiki, so it would be full of Egoists. Lobby gets more traffic from anyone involved with/ interested in the new FAQ, which this is supposed to be a part of.

Which the Buddha considered a sin.

Irrelevant.

Besides, an egoist considers the Universe to only include them.

That's solipsism, which is a different concept. Keep telling me what I believe in, I'm sure someone out there considers that a valid rhetorical tool.

So it's not possible for them to interact with someone else! Surely an egoist, being self-absorbed--couldn't group!

That's demonstrably false in both theory and in practice by the fact that I'm both asking for and receiving help in this project. A project that I volunteered to help with without asking for anything in return.

2

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Imagine having the power to have an unprompted conversation with an acquaintance/stranger without rehearsing what you're going to say in your head and choosing to use it for the diabolical purpose of small talk.

Or somehow ignoring the immense pain required to maintain eye contact and making it a sign of trustworthiness.

9

CaptainACAB OP wrote (edited )

That heading is actually not supposed to be there, since I decided to just have that section become an expansion of the "Egoist Anarchism" definition. I'm writing this thing on Notepad, with raddle Formatting kept in mind, so everything is the same size and font.

As far as elitism in egoist writing, I agree that it's there, but I wouldn't know where to begin on a criticism of actual substance. Especially since this is supposed to be a summarized introduction.

2

CaptainACAB OP wrote

arguably power cannot be negated and is behind every force shaping the cosmos. its negation would be an impossible stasis.

I just didn't wanna use "hierarchy" because I'm tired of seeing it. You've got a point about restraining the word "power" to its Sociopolitical use, though.

"If Anarchism is a set of practices in tension against both ruling and being ruled, then Egoism can be a compatible philosophy to inform these practices by liberating oneself from the abstractions that justify authority." gets closer to the point. but maybe thats too wordy. (I tend to avoid framing things as obvious or easy to see/understand because I think it wrongly assumes that of the reader.)

I like your suggestion, actually. My general thinking when writing this is that since ziq is going to be linking this in the FAQ that they're putting together, I'd write it in a way that assumes that the reader is unfamiliar with anarchism. I'll be leaving the Reading section of the current /w/egoism Wiki page alone unless someone has any suggested additions or subtractions.

as far as misconceptions, I think the biggest one (and likely responsible for the others on your list) is an overly literal reading of the Ego (and to be fair, poorly translated) as an atomistic and almost social Darwinian individualism. Im really not a fan of the term ego/ism, and to a lesser extent individual/ism, because of this, but its been stuck and I dont see how to dislodge it without annoyingly arguing this point every time its mentioned.

Yeah, it seems like the two "Egoism encourages" subsections could be merged into one. Especially since I'll be expanding upon points made in the "Mutual Aid" sections, my plan has always been to use that section to dispel the rugged individualist reading of the Ego.

I appreciate the criticism, thanks!

3

CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

It's worth a purchase if you can get it for $20 or less and mod the shit out of it and even then it doesn't hold a candle to 3 or NV.

The thing that irked me the most was the heavily watered down dialogue tree (A whopping 4 options, SPECIAL had little to do with it).

I'd just get The Outer Worlds instead; it was developed by Obsidian. They developed KOTOR 2, Alpha Protocol, and New Vegas.

4

CaptainACAB OP wrote

Alright, I managed to fill in the Egoist Anarchist sections and I made revisions to the Anarchism vs Egoism section.

The next part is the "Common Misconceptions" section, which I look forward to and dread writing.

Still taking critiques, suggestions, and additional ideas. Feel free to not pull punches on the "Post-left" section, I really petered out there.

3