Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

You people who caricature reasonable anarchist arguments against religion make me ashamed to call myself an anarchist.

Here is an actually coherent egoist anarchist acknowledging the usefulness of applied virtue ethics language:

However, if postanarchism questions this sort of moral foundationalism, can it still maintain a commitment to ethical action? Not according to Benjamin Franks, who argues that postanarchism leads to a radical subjectivism – a moral relativism where the individual, in a solipsistic fashion, determines his or her own moral coordinates – thus, making it unsuitable for developing ethical and political relations with others. This subjectivist position is attributed to Stirner, who, Franks argues, rejects the universal moral and rational discourses embodied in Enlightenment humanism and proposes in their place the supreme individualism and amoralism of the selfcreating egoist:

"However, the alternative [to consequentialist and deontological anarchisms] adopted by some egoist individualists and postanarchists, i.e. radical subjectivism, is inadequate on similar grounds. If subjectivism is right, then it restricts the possibility of meaningful ethical dialogue, recreates hierarchies between the liberated ego and the rest, and cannot adequately account for the creative ego, without recourse to the other social forms it rejects." ...

As an alternative to both Stirnerite ‘subjectivism’ and moral universalism, Franks proposes a situated ethics: an understanding of ethics as situated within, and contingent upon, specific social practices, communities and organisations. Different situations demand different ethical relations and rules, rules which can nevertheless change over time, and are open to dialogue and critical negotiation. I fully agree with this application of ethics, and I see it as a useful way of thinking about ethics in terms of autonomy and pluralism.

- The Politics of Post-Anarchism by Saul Newman


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Obviously you can relate to someone as having character vices and virtues without it having any religious component. I'm an existential nihilist, but I wish I had the language of applied ethics to describe subjective ways people desire to act and relate to others earlier on in my life: My Virtue-Existentialist Ethics


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

I'm not adding a tonne of commentary, that's the concern, that the copyright holder will say readers can pick up my book and have read their book without the content having been substantially transformed, so simply costing them the profit on their book.

I'm just presenting it in a slightly different way, with paragraphs moved around into the timeline of his life, with light commentary, some boring paragraphs missing and some other sources added.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Alright fuck it, I'm editing it now to include a bijillion references which will likely take a month to finish working on part-time. If I get fined you have to tell me a place where we can meet so that I can travel to meet you and slap you with a dead fish that I'll find in a dumpster.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

I wrote cease and desist email, first you give me unasked for BS advice, and then you call me a liar, another amazing convo on If I tried to publish someone else's book with just paragraphs moves around, and adding my own commentary, without permission, I wouldn't be surprised if I got fined in court for it not being deemed fair use, I just don't much like risking that possibility is all.


Ishkah OP wrote

The Truth versus Lies book that I would be quoting from extensively was copyrighted by Kaczynski, even though it was never printed on mass. I would have liked to put up a perfectly re-typed up version on the anarchist library for free, but Kaczynski never responded to my letter, and his publishers sent me a cease and desist email. The rights to use the Aileen Wuornos prison letters were also the property of the friend she gave them to, and copyrighted in a book that she signed a deal on.

And no, my interest in true crime simply has to do with my interest in psychology and political activism to try and bring about a better society where less unjustified violence occurs.

I’m fascinated by outcasts like Aileen Wuornos and Ted Kaczynski because of their desire to find healing in unorthodox lifestyles, before everything goes wrong for them and others.

The surface level fascination is I’m convinced that profound changes in lifestyle are needed, for instance I live a low-impact vegan lifestyle myself, so unpicking the knot of what went so wrong for them is important for me, in order to understand the way it may have negatively impacted their lives, so as to better advise people to avoid those pitfalls.

The deeper level of fascination is to understand what meaning they were deriving from their life and unpicking that knot of how can any person get so lost. Finally, we all walk around with naive assumptions that people we know well could never act in evil ways, if we're ever forced to come face to face with the fact that they are, we have this realization of the ways we were blind to being able to help those people.

For Ted he romanticized nature as a boy in the library, reading books about neanderthals, and wishing he could escape into that life.

For Aileen she had set off hitchhiking and began living on communes from the age of 15 with the hope of doing some psychological healing away from the circle she was stuck in in Troy, Michigan, where she grew up.

This was also a very romanticized road to take at the time, although I don’t think Aileen bought into all of that, as she was simply homeless from the age of 13, and traveling further afield was a nice break from relying on friends in Troy. But, she loved the hippie music of the era and cherished every commune she stayed at for the people who attempted a new more compassionate way of relating to one another.

So for me, that was activist circles, the way people romanized the activist life on the road, and my participation in it was partly to heal wounds from childhood. So, it left me with the understanding that you don't get a choice in the strange situational reasons that different people will be alienated from society enough to join this or that campaign, but you can make the best of the journey all the same.

The idea of people being commended for being part of nomadic culture today is; if you’re able to plug the gaps in various local campaigns, like helping out with cooking for activist soup kitchens and giving workshops, etc.

I set off at 16 for Malaysia on a month long outdoor expeditions trip and got to live with poor rice farmers, and at 17 for earth first gatherings and climate camps, and then was on the road from 19 for many years, going from protest camp to protest camp.

I was looking at environmental groups from tree sitters in California, to food not bombs groups in Indonesia. And seeing this movement learning from each other internationally, that had different social and moral norms, that I was really wanting to explore and see if I could make that my adoptive community.

The same way some people have the willpower to put up with horrible bosses in order to pursue a passion at work, I was OK with putting up with physical hardships in order to get to explore this more co-operative culture in its grassroots form, still developing, trying to become the mainstream culture and politics.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

The goalposts were always at around 500 years if people read my post carefully, as I was talking about a point in time in which the whole world was virtually already vegan and debating safaris or extinction.

Most anarchists in the real world aren't vegan and aren't cool with domesticated animal extinction, so it was just positing a hypothetical drug to make the scenario more concrete, to have a possible future to debate. But either raddle is mostly pro-extinction vegan anarchists, or the meat eaters and anti-extinction ones aren't coming out to debate, so you guys just took it as an opportunity to read in bad faith and commit a circular firing squad. Congrats lol.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

Jebus, why do people bother commenting assuming my positions without reading or comprehending what I wrote. I'm not hypothesising what we ought ideally do now if everyone went vegan tomorrow, it's about one possible avenue that might be open to us like 500 years in the future, if most people are eating near to zero animals every year, so there only being around a billion domesticated land animals spread out over the whole planet. And obviously that the drug wouldn't have these effects, like that it had a high absorption rate and that there were so few animals left that it had a negligible impact on the environment.


Ishkah OP wrote

billions and billions of animals

You've failed at comprehending the potential short, long and forever outcomes I posited in the post.

I'm going to get back to my work that fulfills me now, because I like mostly using the primary definitions of words and not getting into boring semantics discussions, have a great day.


Ishkah OP wrote

Like I said in another thread if you shot a bison with a magic domesticating and infantilising dart out in the wild, and made it easier prey for predators, I think the character virtuous decision would be to protect them from predators and attend to their healthcare needs. It wouldn't be to just release them into an area with less predators and hope everything works out, it would be to release them into an area where no predators could predate on them because we were the cause of their stunted physical capabilities.


Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

What the fuck have I just read -- AGAIN??

Lol, these reactions are what makes it so funny posting here.

If you don't want domestic animals to reproduce you don't have to drug them. Just keep males and females separated.

I think it's more likely that far in the future there'll be harmless infertility drugs we can give in food that will last years, making it the more compassionate option than separating a herd of animals that care about each other by sex and making it so they each can't roam as far as the areas that the other herd roam in.

Furthermore, in what type of an anarchist society will the government write laws to regulate farmers??

My arguments weren't presupposing an anarchist society, as they were written for a general audience, so I was answering what would be some good remedies even if we hadn't yet made it to an anarchist world.

And finally, can we stop with these sweeping plans as if there is a single solution that the entire human race, all 7 billion people on this planet, can just take and apply to their specific circumstances?

Sounds like this is the opening gambit of a boring semantics discussion, all I said was one valuable option for what to do about domesticated animals dependence on us is giving them a good life and letting them go extinct through birth control.


Ishkah wrote (edited )

I'd argue the word for "not a sexist" is a feminist, and "not a speciesist" is a vegan.

I get the point of the post is we want to work towards a world where people no longer need to identify as vegan because the whole world is vegan.

I just wanted to add that qualifier, as there are vegans genuinely arguing to give up the word or make it's meaning more restricted than necessary. Whereas I think it has practical utility for instance to mark food in a cafe as not containing animal products, and to highlight events where you can find people to collaborate on animal liberation projects with.


Ishkah wrote (edited )

I don't really care to get into a debate with a pseudo-post-identity-politics-anarchist who is so deeply immersed in idpol that you see spooky performative idpol arguments everywhere, even when all I was doing is just positing evidence of a position along a reformist spectrum.


Ishkah wrote

I knew a lot of this already, but I'm always glad to read evidence of wrongdoing to get a fuller picture on the region. I'm particularly interested in the exporting of the process of 'Tekmil' back into anarchist spaces in the UK:

Tekmil is an instrument of collective reflection. The historical root of what we know as tekmil can be traced to authoritarian communist traditions, such as Stalinism. Although, Mao was the first one among these traditions to put so much emphasis and importance to the methods of criticisms and self-criticism.

- Tekmil: A Tool For Collective Reflection

I would love to do a long-term psychological study on people who went through this, what their thoughts were on their experiences 1 year later, 5 years later and 10 years later. It doesn't half sound culty, but I'm open to the possibility it incidentally had a positive impact on most peoples lives due to there having not been any real culture of criticism in their lives at all before hand, healthy or not.

I wanted to go out there when the Syrian Civil War first started, I know people have gone over to work as doctors, farmers, architects and soldiers. I still think it would be immensely valuable for people with a strong headspace to go, come back and spread their first hand experience of the war Turkey is waging now, and any potential progress towards an anarchist society.

Here's one piece of counter evidence about the potential increase in women's autonomy anyways:

How our feminist ideals incorporated into their praxis because I know there's a strong focus on feminism when anyone talks about Rojava or the Kurds?

Yes so there's obviously the Yekîneyên Parastina Jin which is the YPJ, the women's protection units, so that's a big part of it, they set up a lot of women's houses which are, it's hard to describe, I've been to a couple for a short amount of time, but they're essentially some sort of mix between family planning advice Center, domestic violence shelter and a barracks, in some cases.

Because it's a very violently patriarchal society in many ways and so you kind of have this sort of thing where a woman will escape a forced marriage or a violent home and come to the woman's house and the father, the brothers, the husband and his father and brothers and everything will come along to try and get them back and when a woman with a machine gun pops up on the roof, they generally reconsider.

In that sense they're taking a very direct woman controlled approach to facing these things head-on, it's one thing that they don't compromise with, on economics that's one thing, but they do not compromise on the women's rights, and that sometimes bring them into opposition with the more you know conservative and patriarchal elements of society, but the kind of benefits are there that generally all you gas out of it is just you know the old husband's complaining that they can't tell their wives or daughters anything anymore.

Yeah so there’s that and in the actual councils there's a 40% gender quota so essentially if there's you know 60% women on a council on the larger councils there aren't allowed to be any more there's forty percent men as the rest the council and likewise if there's sixty percent men then there has to be 40% women and this they will do things like you know they will delay the council meeting until all these men who have come and said oh well my wife couldn't come because she's busy they tell the man to go home do whatever work the woman was supposed to be doing and sent the woman to the council otherwise they won't help them sort of thing so yeah it's very important part of the practice and is the thing that they're most successful at. …

There's also things like one of my best came out in fact most of my best commanders well those out there were women very varying different levels so this is another thing at all levels of the hierarchy sort of thing there are a man and a woman with a kind of equal position but the the woman can give orders to men so you know low like my equivalent of a captain I suppose could order around the you know platoons of male soldiers in the YPG but a man cannot do the same to the woman they can suggest to the ypj that they should do something and you know often there in the interests of fighting the same war or whatever so they'll do it but they can't command them they can't order them if if a if a male YPG member commits a offense against a ypj it's the ypj and their command structure that deal with it and there's nothing we can do about it so say this is very unlike to happen but you know men being men say a man was sexually assault a member of the ypj then the ypj could come along with their rifles and everything drag him off and punish him in whatever the way they saw fit and we won't be allowed to raise a finger or protest you know it's deal with not for us. …

People often joke that if you assault a ypj they could just drag you off and shoot you, and that's not quite true but they're a lot more likely to say platform a man where essentially they have to stand in front of like all the ypj in the region while each one lays out exactly why what they did was wrong at great length and like kind of shame of them in front of everyone that's quite a common punishment for sort of intermediate kind of crimes or offenses or whatever crimes isn't quite the right word for some things that you would get that kind of treatment for, but yeah.

- On the Rojavan Revolution with Josh Walker, YPG Veteran