OdiousOutlaw wrote

"Passing on my IQ" is some goofy, dork-ass shit that only something as vile and ignorant as pronatalist could spew.

Probably doesn't even know what a recessive gene is, the fucking IQ-believer.

"I'm having kids to indoctrinate them to my way of thinking" head-ass; I sincerely hope your kids overcome their shit parents and disown you.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

Some of the worst people have called themselves "Cultural Christians".

More generally:

Religion in itself, without spirituality, is a means by which common personal moral codes can manifest its benefits throughout a society.

Napoleon, through the Concordat, was functionally Atheist but believed in the power of religion to "not make the poor eat the rich".

Sounds like embracing the controlling aspect of religion without the "merit" of some higher force to "justify" submission to it. I'm not a fan, to say the least.

As for how it manifests in non-Western variants, I'm not all that informed on the Taoist, Shinto, and Confucian belief systems; so I won't really speak on them.


OdiousOutlaw OP wrote (edited )

My favorite part in zombie fiction is when someone gets bit and, for some reason, decides to hide it so that they can become a zombie and kill at least one other person within their group.

Weird how that whole trope is dependent on settings where getting bitten leads to death/zombification 100% of the time, but manages to be so prevalent.

Zombie stuff could use more variety in its world building.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

whenever society talks about food production, veganism hijacks the conversation away from meaningful change

Man, I hate when I go to the world-wide societal meeting every Sunday to talk about food production and some fucking herbivore talks about not eating meat instead of ending society itself.

I just know normal people would take me seriously when I suggest that we should radically alter life as we know it by ending civilization if the leaf munchers didn't interrupt them talking about tearing down another rainforest for farmland to talk about how eating meat is bad.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

I didn't feel attacked at all; I just wanted to point out that whiteness is actually more...complicated than what you're saying. Not sure how they do it anywhere else, but latin-americans are lumped into their category here, down to the paperwork concerning job applications and government assistance: white, black, asian, etc. all have "non-latino" within parenthesis, whereas "latino" is its own racial category.

"Ethnic" whites weren't considered white in the past (conservative irish-americans and italian-americans love pointing this out to dismiss racial issues), but they are now. White latinos aren't white here because they're not considered to have fully assimilated into WASP culture like the other "ethnic" whites did.

So, yeah, passing for white gets you some benefits in regards to privilege; as far as "engaging with whiteness" goes, I think it's more of an individual thing; a lot of white latin-americans that were born here aren't used to being told that they're white, they don't consider themselves as such; there are white-passing (or just plain white) latin-americans that engage with whiteness as well, but I can't say that it's a conscious choice on their part.

I am reluctant to call it "white", though; since that construct is cultural as well as racial.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

I'd say that I agree with two out of those three things. All three depending on where you are.

My mom is not white...by US standards.She's very insistent that she isn't white; she's a conservative anti-vaxxer (more out of a skepticism for "big pharma", than the autism stuff, thankfully) with very...ignorant notions of race and racism, particularly within Latin American countries. So, yeah, I'd say she engages in as much whiteness as she can; we're financially unstable, she's too introverted to be climbing many social ladders, and the children that live with her aren't going to be seen as anything other than "Black"; so it isn't a lot. She's experienced anti Latin-american sentiment before, so it's not like she's full-on WASP.

Then again, I'm using US standards of whiteness; she's as white as they come in Latin America, but here? She's in the very ambiguous status of "Latina", which is a minority here, but can be anything on the racial hierarchy; very irritating to engage with.

As far as the hierarchy of colorism goes, I'm definitely not passing as white, but I also don't know how far my skin color gets me; I don't like the idea of benefiting from it, because I'm still obviously Black and it doesn't feel like I do.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

how is a parent saving their child from dying heirarchy?

It isn't.

Chomsky's whole thing is being a universalist, he believes that morals can be deduced via reasoning and that common standards exist and can be found through that reasoning. The "saving the child from dying" example is an attempt to naturalize hierarchy by giving an example of a "justified hierarchy"; because it would be unthinkable, unreasonable, downright illogical and immoral to argue against a parent saving their child when they have the ability to do so.

"A parent is a figure of authority to the child, therefore a hierarchy between parent and child exists, but the parent saved the life of the child using force, depriving the child of their autonomy for a split-second, so all hierarchies can't be bad, right? Some forms of authority are justified."

Is the logic that they're going by. It's shaky; works by being very lenient with some definitions (conflating the deference to expertise with hierarchy and the act of protecting a child from potential danger with the use of power/authority), but also insisting that these definitions be the only ones used; and, again, attempts to naturalize, downplay, and rationalize the acceptance of authority.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

I'm working on an internal system; I prefer precision over accuracy.

If they don't call themselves anarchists, they're bookchinites; if they do, they're anarcho-syndicalists.

Sure, they believe in the same thing, so the distinction doesn't really matter, but the same can be said for libertarians and classical liberals.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

You do understand that anarchism would not exist without socialist ideology, right?

Even if that was correct (it's not), why exactly does that mean that anarchists are obliged to defend socialism/communism/Marxism?

stateless, classless, money-less society. Is that not a form of anarchy?

Socialists don't want a lawless society, though. In order to get necessary Big Number for mass societal change, they need to make a compromise with the primarily liberal sensibilities of "The People"; any time an anarchist plays to ideas such as the "necessity of prison", they're forced to placate the anxieties towards any actual transformative change to social affairs. Any form of anarchism that they conjure up would be a compromise between society as it currently is and the abolition of society as it currently is; one that always has us at the short end of the stick. So, no, it's not a form of anarchy.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

As a matter of fact, here's a hot take:

Since politics always involves the affairs of the state, its government, and its citizenry; all politics are identity politics because nationality is also an identity; and even anarcho-democrat-communists will have biases towards their in-group (that is, their territory) whenever they'd have to deal with other groups of anarcho-democrat-communists that live somewhere else. The "innate human nature that happens to correlate directly to my personal beliefs" rhetoric that political theorists love using has always been bullshit and no amount of organization, planning, and blueprints can truly subvert the chaos of actual people.