CaptainACAB wrote

Social Anarchism has always been more about getting bigger numbers than actual anarchy.

I get why they are the way they are. I can see their reasoning. I just don't see any value in watering down my beliefs to reach some mythical Least Common Denominator that'll end up just being some variation of social democracy--which is the only way that anarchism would be popular.

Also, the people who disagree with my position won't agree with me just because they read a book that I wrote explaining the ins and outs of my philosophy/politics.

You don't become your political opposite just by reading a text that happened to be adequately written (I certainly wouldn't want to ally myself with someone so easily persuaded).

If a Marxist handed me a persuasive essay about why I should be a Marxist, I'd politely take it and throw it away when they weren't looking (like I do with Christians and their seemingly endless pamphlets).

"Introductory material" is arbitrary; a lot of anarchists seem to go out of their way to explain that their position is this and not that or define words to make sure that the reader knows that they're saying that instead of this. They like to say why [thing anarchists hate] instead of just "[thing anarchists hate] should be abolished". Almost like they're used to having to dispel misinterpretations and misunderstandings of their positions and desires.


CaptainACAB wrote

on and the latina who is like literally as white as me who is then shocked that she is almost all spanish. And the fucking glare she gave when the perosn joked that she might just classify as a european.

Aww, she reminds me of my mom.

My siblings and I have all called her white at some point, she's a quarter Indian, but you really wouldn't be able to tell.


CaptainACAB wrote

Peep that casual misogynist lingo, tho.

Such a visceral reaction to people committing the heinous crime of...following the anarchist past time of rejecting political structures wholesale.

Not my fault politics, morality, and 'objective values' don't real.


CaptainACAB wrote

We'd have anarchy without dissent; no one would have any reason to deny the collective its actions if we simply "evolved" into eusociality.

Damn, they got Marxism in my anarchy.

Now I have to throw it away and start from scratch; maybe I should sprinkle the individualism in before anything else?


CaptainACAB wrote

my socdem anarcho socialist utopia will have no exploitation

we will get our rare metals from spaaaaace rocks which the space anarcho miners will mine for free because humans are fundamentally good and will do work for free far away from their loved ones so that strangers can have smartphones

meat will be cloned and the aminals can live in zoos or nature reserves or something

i mean marx never said anything about animals so fuck em honestly if they wanted me to care they should have been born humans

menial labor will be done by machines and nerds can do maintenence on those machines for free because farmers and meat harvesters will also work for free and they can share food with the nerds and everyone else so i take up my weeklong passion of drawing

climate change will go away once we all hold hands and get rid of the profit motive born form icky capitalism and the capitalists and cops and priests will see the errors of their ways and we'll all sit in a circle and sing kumbaya

egoists who follow the laws community guidelines laws dont have anything to worry about as long as you follow societies rules you can be as free and individually fulfilled as we they want the axe of the anarcho executioner is guided by the anarcho judge who is always incorruptible and right

and no one will ever die again and the world will know unending stagnant peace

buuuut we gotta purge the inhuman monsters and continue to shoulder the white mans burden for the foreseeable future because why should i be inconvenienced


CaptainACAB wrote

I've found basically everyone 'sympathetic' to primitivists doesn't understand or appreciate how industrialization happened and functions.

Slavery? Exploiting men, women, and children for labor under such terrible conditions that laws had to be made against it and even then sweatshops are still a thing? Ecological destruction and ruination on an unprecedented scale? Great Britain? Protestant Work Ethic?? Come on, none of these things are good!

Primitivists themselves, of course, generally don't bother pretending there's a solution, and this is why we say the disabled are left to die by them.

...That's why??


CaptainACAB wrote

I've never known anyone that gets along well (as in, actively attempts to maintain contact on any basis) with all of their biological family members; so I'm in the "pick your favorites and move on" camp.

I'm lucky in that I'm fond of several blood relatives (they still piss me off sometimes, but I can't see myself cutting ties with them; that's basically how love works, I think); my inner circle is basically full at this point; others aren't so lucky and have to form that circle on their own.

The worth of maintaining said bond is proportionate to how much you value keeping that person in your life (nostalgia won't heal the rift. I've tried. Three times with three different people.); I haven't spoken to two of my brothers, but actively maintain contact with my Dad.

I think the best way to tell if you're not haunted by the ghost of "family" is if you're able to ruthlessly prioritize which individual members you value more than others and live your life.


CaptainACAB wrote

Another thing; admittedly something I know very little about, but aren't there non-industrialized people living on earth right now? Aren't there still indigenous people on the planet today that don't use technology and aren't part of civilization?


Or do they have some arbitrary defense about how their point that "primitivists are ableist child killers" doesn't apply to all the indigenous people around the world?

They believe that anprims/anti-civs want ideological dominance and want to enact total social upheaval via revolution. Because several billion lives depend upon civilization, this would logically lead to a lot of deaths (how civ is dismantled so easily and quickly in their minds, I don't know). What they're missing is that anprims aren't social anarchists, and are closer to so-called lifestylists.

Like, why??? Why do people argue that way about primitivism?

Most people are genuinely ignorant about prehistory and buy into that hobbesian narrative of a "cruel, brutally short" life; regardless of research proving otherwise, they think humans died at the age of 30, had no form of medicine, no form of care for the disabled, and so on. Pro-civs have no reason to critique this because they see civilization as an objective good; identifying as anti-civ to them is like identifying as "evil" to a moralist: at best "misguided", at worst "malevolent", "genocidal", or even "insane".


CaptainACAB wrote

But what about the children?!

Fucking god. I'm tired of this rhetoric.

But, uhh, yeah pretty weird how all of those different "anarchos" (and the one "anarcha") are separated as though they're all mutually exclusive (the syndies are the odd one of the bunch, of course) and that you can have anarchy without one of them (again, save for syndies).

Yadda yadda yadda civs cause a lot of unnecessary death (and dead children, but why is that somehow worse? Millions dead is still millions dead) from easily prevented disease because cities containing multiple species of animals, large populations of humans, terrible waste management/disposal methods, and sedentary lifestyles is how diseases rapidly mutate and become pandemics. More so with transportation to other cities (with different environments), overuse of antibiotics, and other factors. It's like no one's ever played plague inc, or something.

What even is a "high quality of life"? Everyone's obsessed with their own mortality, so it almost always seems to come to lifespan.


CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to Question by ziq

If anyone needs me, I'll be taking my Large Hadron Collider to the next star system and radioing my findings to Gillis as an ordinary guy with no academic accolades to my name.

That post can't actually be serious, right?


CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to comment by existential1 in Friday Free Talk by kinshavo

I have too many interests for the finite time I have in the day. And when I'm stressed, I manicly try to pursue a bunch of them.

Same, except I can barely get started on one thing because I feel some indescribable feeling of "yeah, I'll get right on that; but what if I did this instead" and end up in a loop of thinking about what I'm looking forward to doing/learning instead of actually doing the thing I decided I would do until an hour or two passes by and I have resign myself to doing some third thing because it's easier.

I've been telling myself that I would get back into drawing/finishing that story I was writing/finishing that game/reading that book for about 2 years now.


CaptainACAB wrote (edited )

Started onboarding for my new job.

The obligatory "introduce yourself and tell us something about yourself" is awful, the mandatory webcam makes me uncomfortable, the incoming infodump sounds daunting, but at least I'm getting paid more than I was at the old one.


CaptainACAB wrote

Reply to Anarcho-Iceland by ziq

"Realism" in anarchist circles is basically just short hand for saying "I lack both the imagination to envision a society completely different from the one I actively want to escape and the humility to admit that I don't have all of the answers."