Comments

2

Pop wrote

I don't have pets

What is the alternative? To kill the pet?

For me this pet thing is complicated; I simultaneously

  • care about animals and don't like the horrible ways that they are treated in this world
  • am aware that for some people, having a pet is some important shit that keeps them together
  • recognise how groups of people are dehumanised and seen/treated 'like animals', and that racists and others tend to focus on green issues in their closedness to engaging racism
  • find it hard to see people who buy food and toys and like a dog bed or whatever for their inside dog while there are homeless people
  • think that if people treat their pets like family then this is in some ways a similar kind of question to 'how can we feed our children without destroying the environment' - especially for those people who are from point 2

I don't see much use in spending a lot of time trying to create relatively ethical ways of feeding your personal pet, and would be skeptical of people who did because I feel like there are better ways to spend the energy

perhaps my solution is to ignore this entirely and give my everything to destroying kyriarchy

4

Pop wrote

Usually it's a good time to engage people about how voting is a disempowering waste of time

It might be worthwhile to try to publish something about this, either in hardcopy newspaper or a local news site online
I've done this before just taking other anarchist thinkpieces and tailoring them to my context with not a lot of effort

3

Pop wrote (edited )

Anarchist education of various sorts: Workshops/skillshares/schools/universities

Anarchist Black Cross, bookfairs

Anarchist support funds

Squats/occupations

Disaster relief

3

Pop wrote

didn't mean to appear to put words in your mouth or to call you a reactionary (I don't know you) - not sure why you think I did since I was expressed confusion and also just having the sense of your words meaning a thing just so you could unconfuse me

deliberately small intentional communities sound good I think, but presumably you need to tackle bigger picture things in order to make that a reality

So, to clarify, you can sympathise with controlled migration because of reasons like them driving down wages, lack of housing, and later you say integration would be achieved by stuff like provided language education and neighbour-meeting?

Do they actually drive down wages? Isn't it also a function of capitalist society to create marginalised groups who are seen as 'driving down wages' - and if they did not exist, it would be some other group who would be slapped with that label? it's capitalists who drive down wages, imo, and it's not unusual for immigrants to be educated/skilled for work and overall to help a society economically at that level

2

Pop wrote

Integrated, harmonious communities don't spring up overnight.

integrated, harmonious communities will only be genuinely integrated and harmonious if they are susceptible to flow and change, otherwise they're just an exclusionary and conservative gated community
borders are a global caste system, a complex global apartheid

your language is very confusing for me because I get the sense that you kinda mean assimilation when you say integration and that when you say harmonious you kinda mean homogenous

2

Pop wrote (edited )

but it also seems undeniable that it causes big problems in host countries, especially for the poorest people there

If this is true (I think it is deniable and am not sure why you think what you think), then that is the fault of the political system, and not the refugees

resolving the problem then would not amount to preventing refugees from entering, but addressing the conditions that cause the harm (by expropriating from the rich and having adequate facilities to welcome refugees, etc)

(edited: I screwed up the typing the first time around)

4

Pop wrote

I think that rights discourse is generally not our friend
(some short reading around that topic can be found here.)

Doesn't the idea of migration in today's world generally imply borders and nations?

I'm trying to understand how one would have a problem with migration if we assume that states are our enemy (and also well-off countries are what they are as a result of exploitation of the countries that are less well-off)
Assuming we're working with the current situation - what circumstances would you think might hypothetically be acceptable to prevent a person from entering a country?