Ennui

Ennui wrote

The police, the state, and so forth are only an 'enemy' in the sense that they impede goals I want to achieve. An insurrectionary mindset says I should choose whatever tool is best for the situation at hand. So if calling the cops is the best means, and the consequences of doing so are acceptable, then I would. But I recognize that the cops aren't a cure-all and that most things are better left unreported, and in general achieving my goals requires hindering police efforts.

3

Ennui wrote

Reply to by !deleted31767

Getting to the summit of a mountain after hours of hiking through jungle and up boulders. On the final stretch I was sprinting up the stone blocks carved into the mountain. It was dark from because the surrounding trees, wet because it had begun to rain. Then the trees pulled back, and I saw that I was just above the cloudline.

3

Ennui wrote

I just want to add that it's not so much that other predators can keep predators in check, but that the prey and predator populations are tied together, and the prey evolved alongside the predators so that they can respond better.

7

Ennui wrote

I think I see the issue now. I believe not just that the impregnator should assist with the abortion, but that they should provide the equivalent resources even if the pregnant person decides to have the child. That way the impregnator is not biasing their decision. Then, only society and the struggles of parenthood influence the pregnant person's decision. (Not saying that's good btw. It's just the minimum obligation.)

The impregnator is obligated to provide the resources in either case (birth or abortion) because they still have to reconcile their accidental responsibility. You might argue that the impregnator is also 'restricting resources' by failing to be a parent. However, given that they used adequate birth control, did not intend to be a parent, and had consensual sex on this understanding, no such responsibility to be a parent ever existed.

3

Ennui wrote

At most the impregnator should be required to cover the costs afforded by their accidental responsibility, such as the price of abortion, time off work, self-care, and so on.

You're correct. By the above quote I meant to imply that the costs of an abortion are negotiable. I.e. if a sexual partner chooses to get an abortion and wants therapy afterwards, wants assistance getting there and back, protection from assholes, etc. that should all be factored into the bounds of one's accidental responsibility. I just think that in most cases an abortion is less 'costly' than giving birth and raising a child, so it's the lower limit.

2

Ennui wrote

Where in this scenario is the pregnant person being forced to have an abortion? They have a choice: have the child or don't. The only coercion is the fact that having a kid is expensive and difficult. Isn't the whole point of pro-choice to make parenthood intentional, to free women from the forced poverty of having children they don't want or cannot afford?

3

Ennui wrote

I'm open to change my mind on the following. Personally, I'm getting sterilized so that I never have to experience this situation. I also apologize for the coarse language--I didn't know how else to organize my thoughts.

If someone with male organs has sex for reasons other than procreation and uses proper birth control, they're only causally responsible for pregnancy. But we recognize that genuine responsibility requires either intent or at least that they should have recognized an eventuality that would, within a degree of probability, result from their actions. Consensual sex using adequate birth control, without the intent to impregnate/get pregnant, doesn't imply responsibility for either of the parents. It does not imply responsibility for the child, or else abortion would be impermissible. It also does not imply responsibility on the behalf of one partner for the other. Certainly, the pregnant person has no responsibility to the impregnator. For on the one hand, we recognize that bodily autonomy trumps any existing obligation to the impregnator. But it'd also be wrong to say that any level of responsibility exists to be trumped. The (hypothetical) pregnancy is accidental; so is the donation of genetic material. In fact, the partners took steps to assure they would not be responsible in the form of birth control. Given that any responsibility of the pregnant person to the impregnator is purely accidental, I see no reason why the opposite should not also hold.

Where abortion is illegal or generally inaccessible, child support makes ethical sense. Both parents have a purely causal, non-intentional, accidental responsibility to the child, but as u/bloodrose says, the welfare of the child, since it will be born, is important (especially since foster care is abysmal). But where abortion is accessible, legal, safe, etc. choosing to have the child transforms the pregnant person's accidental responsibility into intentional responsibility. At most the impregnator should be required to cover the costs afforded by their accidental responsibility, such as the price of abortion, time off work, self-care, and so on.

My approach relies on the assumption that one has no ethical responsibility to a fetus.

2

Ennui wrote

Kropotkin's not all bad. I regret reading the Conquest of Bread because it's so horrifically outdated, and nowadays I lean towards market anarchism or anti-civ.

When I wrote this 8 months ago for some reason I gave a shit, which I no longer do.

1

Ennui wrote

I go to work and school, come home exhausted and fall asleep. I wake up at midnight having realized my fatal error. I complete a few assignments; the words look fuzzy, and the screen is too bright. I stay up until my next class because if I go back to bed then I'll never make it to school. I am exhausted from staying up all night, I fall asleep when I get home, and the cycle repeats anew.

I'm so fucking hungry.

7

Ennui wrote

I feel like post-leftism has to do with rejecting the overall spectacle of leftism, not just the mentality of sacrificing yourself to society by working for the 'common good'. For instance, post-leftism might also include a critique of utopian idealization by leftists and anarchists. It may oppose deluded varieties of anarchism that still qualify as non-workerist, such as the crowd that thinks automation should replace all labor.

While 'post-workerism' is linked to these things, the extent of the philosophy is not immediately obvious from the term.

11

Ennui wrote

Reply to by !deleted8217

Not conservative, but otherwise no political obligations other than acceptance of my beliefs. Their life plan can't be in the opposite vein as mine. Attraction is an odd one, since it clearly matters, but I'm not a sexual person. Really the biggest thing is that we don't constantly get into fights and are quick to let go of our anger when we do. I hate being angry.

3

Ennui wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Finish this sentence by ziq

...systemic brutality, in an ever revolving circle with no insight into human nature.

alt: ...human nature, and the proof is systemic brutality.

2