I hope that by "gamers" you mean a certain type of person and not just people who play games in general.

What are you defining as "civilisation" here?

If we're talking about living in some kind of Mad Max wasteland, then no. That would just create new ways for people to exploit others.

My thoughts exactly. Poly can be just as much of a way to treat others (often women) like shit.

Just because you don't see any hope doesn't mean you shouldn't carry on trying to do what you can. Things may change and if they don't, at least you've done your part to help.

I don't know, I'm not a medical professional and I don't know where you live. Keep that in mind as you read this comment.

If you want to donate blood and not just get tested, I don't know of any anarchist communities with their own blood bank. To be honest, if you live in a country with a national healthcare system I would just go with that. It's more likely to have enough reach to make sure your blood goes where it needs to be.

To be fair, they also had a much harder life than mine and if I were a medieval peasant I would probably have died in childbirth already

I watch a lot of TV, usually series that I like or catch my interest. There's no common theme other than liking the characters or the stories.

They all have an eyeburning nightmode :(

When you say you leave restaurants without paying, are you including tips on that?

Isn't there a rule about how often you can donate (for your own safety)? That could be it.

You know that "law" that states that the comments on an article about feminism end up reflecting why feminism is still necessary?

There should be a similar law about how when racist white people try to explain why they think something isn't racist it shows exactly why it's racist.

I see the opposite ("it's not race, it's class") line of thought a lot. I don't know about America specifically but while bridging the wealth gap in general is a worthy thing, bridging it based on white people just ignores the specifics of how PoC get screwed over on a constant basis.

Thanks for sharing this.

I get there's value in amplifying women's (and especially WOC's voices) but I personally think a boycott is the right call here. Twitter doesn't care what you're amplifying, as long as it drives traffic and eyeballs to their content. It's still giving twitter the status it wants as a platform.

A boycott seems more sensible because it drives home the point to twitter, to users who are less aware, and even to other platforms who could step up their game that they need users around and that people can drop twitter.

I don't know if this particular boycott was thought out in advance but boycotting looks like the way to go going forward. Platforms need to stop taking users for granted and users need to stop giving sites the importance they want to have.

There's probably a lot to say here about toxic masculinity and homophobia but my only reaction right now is, that is gross.

To add to your last paragraph, the way that if you accept a guy doing something that just seems like a kind gesture some guys will assume you now owe them something (sex) or that you're into them.

" how sad it must be to think that there’s no kindness for the sake of kindness. "

you hit the nail on the head with this one, I agree completely.

I'm sure that in the case of social collapse we can just all persuade far-right murderers to not murder anyone through reasonable arguments! /s

How would you convince a Nazi that just doesn't want to listen to your opinions because they're so convinced that their opinion is the right one and that it's an acceptable one to express?

What about situations where Nazis might be physically threatening someone?

Yes! I think it's really important to emphasise the existence of safer roles and how necessary they can be. Not everyone is able to go out and do some rioting, not just because of being afraid to lose their mortgage but because of stuff like disabilities or having to take care of kids or whatever.

My opinion might be unpopular here but here it goes.

For a lot of people, there isn't much of a choice in terms of getting "in the system" in some way or another. Many people have responsibilities like kids, aging relatives, or sick relatives who depend on them. Many, if not most, people depend on the system in some way or another to put food on the table and a roof over their heads and will take these opportunities in a heartbeat because nobody likes to starve.

I think anarchism should be something oriented towards others, not just ourselves. Historically, many anarchists were "in the system" (like people working in factories they didn't own themselves). To me that's part of the point, when you can't just drop everything to go live off the grid on your own terms, that's all the more reason for wanting things to change.

Ask yourself, what do you want? How do you see your workplace and your community? How can you use what you have to help change things? This can mean getting more involved in local anarchist groups, helping create a space in your community where people can support each other and rely less on the system, whatever.

If you're asking about your beliefs in a more personal sense, that's just work you'll have to put into reminding yourself of what's important to you and what you believe in, instead of just letting get yourself settle. Maybe remind yourself that this system where you've gotten a good deal is the same system that screws over many people and denies them even the opportunities you've had.

Sorry if this is unclear, English isn't my first language.

Weird, I've seen it and similar phrases used in non-US areas but admittedly it's often when communicating in English and translations could well be specific to certain orgs.

I have mixed feelings about this.

This article is spot-on in pointing out the need to grapple with the way different communities have different experiences and degrees of complicity with racism.

I personally feel like there's some value in having an umbrella term. I feel like it's helpful to be able to find people who have more experiences in common with me as well as different experiences so we can learn from each other and support each other. It's like the value people see in acronyms like LGBTQIA despite problems (like biphobia and transphobia) within that community, because it gives people a way to find and help each other.

I'm not sure what a better alternative would be. "Non-white" seems awkward, like saying "non-straight" or "non-men". Acronyms, maybe.

I'm not American and I've seen PoC and close terms (like translations) get used in multiple countries. That's part of its strength to me, it's a loose enough term that it can be understood but it's also descriptive.

Thoughts?

"Muslim terrorism" seems like if anything it draws a closer connection between Muslims in general and this concept, no?

What's the correct nomenclature then? I usually see the word "Islamism" used to denote extremism as opposed to just Islam.

Ukraine isn't a member of the EU.