Passive_Nihlist

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Perhaps you see it differently but i do not see how such a question can be anything but an accusation. I apologize as I'm sure I come off as defensive, it is because I am. I do appreciate your clarification even if I disagree. I will not bother you with the rest of the discussion.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Your other cruel words and accusations I can brush off, but this is deeply insulting. I was abused as a child because of many of these instituions detailed in this piece (and others not mentioned), that is why I shared it, because youth liberation is am important topic to me, not in the abstract, but in my lived experiences.

If you want to lump yourself in with them go ahead, you have already lumped yourself in with the priests and the cops. What is a teach if not the mixture if both? A parent but a prison guard who never goes home.

Eat shit.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Yes. An alternative, that atleast I am open to, is the use of phrases such as "that person". To give an example. "Yesterday I was talking to this person who said...".

I do not use they/them or neo pronouns because I see them as also gendered and do not wish to be gendered in any way.

1

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Your words are empty. You weaponize them to try and silence those you disagree with. I acknowledge my words are just as harsh, but I do not leave them empty. You do not respond to what I say. You are immune to any critique, and isolated your thoughts to keep them pure. To share them, to answer my questions, would open you to scrutiny.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

You disregard everything I have to say. You are an ideologue unable to see beyond the empty words you preach. If I could have sympathy for your obsession with justice, it ends with this ideological worship of it.

I beg you tell me, what will come of your holy crusade? Will you kill all those you disagree with? Or simply lock them away? Perhaps the newest tool of capital, that of the analyst, shall be turned to your own use?

How can you dress up your crusade as anarchist? All I see is a Christian.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Your logic is that of criminality. You ask me to confess, I have neither sinned nor committed a crime, or at least not this sin, nor this crime. But I am an anarchist, which is to say a criminal and a sinner. I do not think you are employed by the state, but you have a cop in your mind, and a priest in your heart.

Perhaps what I have to say now will be the most proactive of all. I do not blame you for being a cop or a priest. As I have said I understand your position all to well. But I beg of you to reexamine it. But that is the extent of my sympathy.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

When you are interested in an actual dialogue, perhaps we will speak then. I had hoped this would be an opportunity to. But you have no interest in a conversation, as I have said all your questions are statements. I now have no interest in talking to you. So leave me alone, and go preach to someone else.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

As I stated here in the phrase "I see it as misguided" and have stated elsewhere, I am not A_zed. If I may speak without condemnation (I doubt I can) I think your statement, and it is a statement not a question, does not really dignify a response. You have obviously already cast judgement irregardless of who I am. I'm sure nothing I say means anything to you, I do not mean to suggest it should, but what point is communication when you have no interest in what the other has to say?

I do not believe in justice, which that is what is at the heart of your accusation. If I must answer it to not face repression I can answer it in the negative. But to do so I would say implies other are deserving of this repression. And as I mentioned above, if I believed in repression I would become a Marxist, a priest, a cop. So I reject your question and I reject your justice.

1

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

I don't expect anyone to have a civik discussion with me, I simply want to extend an invitation to those who are interested in a dialogue. I understand why you are upset, even if I see at as misguided. Funnily enough the text I recently mentioned, "Letters of Insurgency" asks the exact question you are asking. Perhaps reading it will offer you some insight.

If you ever are interested in a less hostile discussion please do let me know.

0

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Im currently reading through the text "Letters of Insurgency". They similarly were unable to understand each other (and many other people) throughout their correspondence and life. Pretty much the whole text, up to the point I've read so far, about half way, has been trying to understand each other and critique eachother. This was extremely difficult for them it seems, even with having a familiarity and love between them.

Perhaps it is simply impossible ti habe such correspondences today, or just on the internet, or perhaps just without that familiarity, I am unsure.

I agree we probably do not agree on what violence is, or a million other things. If there's a lesson I've taken away from this text ige mentioned, it's that I do not want to be a pedagogue. If you have questions about me or my opinions I'll answer them, and I feel I have laid out here some questions to you if you care to answer them.

To pose another question to your final statement. What is freedom if it must be imposed? For myself i do not oppose the state, or authority, or civilization or what have you, because i think it will be some heaven on earth, some utopia. The totality of freedom (to continue to use such a loaded word) includes all the horrible aspects that entails, all the things we would rather avoid, because it is the freedom to avoid them, to look away, not the authority to stop it from happening. And this I think is the meaning of your last statement the difference between an anarchist and a "tankie".

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote (edited )

What I am saying is as you describe. You advocate nothing different then then the current violence and abuse, except that it be made more internalized, less explicit. And yes what I advocate for is an impossible freedom one that can only be lived today.

Edit: I would be interested to hear how you think I am dogmatic.

2

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote (edited )

You completely changed your response so I deleted my original one. My rejection of science is just that, a rejection of fact, of Truth. Science is little more then the construction of capitalist, and/or modernist, reality, it serves the same function as that of catholicism for the construction of Feudal, and or traditional, reality. It's no wonder why today's atheists are the most religious people. The belief in God has simply shifted to a devotion to institutions.

4

Passive_Nihlist OP wrote

Do you not recognize that the pedagogy and psychology you preach is the same indoctrination this person is discussing?

It seems to me all you are advocating is to remove the physical threat of violence that keeps kids in school and replace it with ideology that constrains them to the school. It reminds me of those who advocate the abolition of ghe violent police just to be replaced with more cops on our heads (often found in terms like community defense or accountability, if not more explicitly stated as community policing).

3