Random_Revolutionary wrote

I feel like a ban is a punishment and wont really solve anything. He kinda already punished himself by loosing the community's trust.

I believe he should go to /f/mediation to solve his personal problems instead of /f/lobby thought.

Also didnt we say that discussions about bans should be done in /f/mediation? Even if we're talking about our former admin, I do not believe this thread belongs in /f/meta


Random_Revolutionary wrote

Imo you're overblowing the gravity of ziq's actions. He fucked up, but didnt really put the site in danger nor put the users in danger (appart from the whole opinion manipulation thing). He was always trying to improve raddle, got caught up in his mess, but came clean quite a while later. I too trust ziq with the server.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

I dont believe in god or in playing god, but wouldn't artificially keeping species out of the natural selection cycle be as horrific as artificially ending theire life spport 10 000 years later?

What do you think of pugs and other small dogs? They were artificially created only for theire looks and their arthritis makes theire life a torture. They aren't able to survive in the wilderness, and suffer even by walking around. Wouldn't not being born be better for them? Same for farm animals, afaik cows make too much milk for the calf to drink it all, and theire udders hurt, I dont even know if they can reproduce naturally.

Setting free the abominations we have created is not possible. Zoos and sanctuaries are possible but not in big scale for environmental reasons.

pets don't have our moral compass so we can't really force ideologies on them. As long as they're fed the right amount of nutrients and live good lives, I believe you should be able to choose their food for them.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

Imo not having pets is the most ethical.

Dogs can be vegan if done properly. It's ethical because it's animal friendly but also good for the environment. I don't know much I don't have animals at home. Bite-sized vegan the youtuber has a dog and talks about how she fed him.

Cats are much harder to be fed vegan: they have a specific enzyme that you need to feed them with theire food for them to digest plants.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

Religion is useless. Spirituality may be useful for children to build theire character and help them cope with the notion of death, but once people are mature enought, they'd better turn to cooler things such as ethics.

I host spirituality talks and praying sessions with groups of children and adolescent, using curated texts from the bible to start the discussion. We also do cooler stuff such as games and observations of nature.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

anticarnist.com vegan propaganda sweater. It's cool af and I get quite a few qustions so it kinda works. It's my selfgifted veganniversary present.

I'd like to paint my bag red&black to get a minimalist ancom flag on it, so other anarchists recognise it but non-anarchists dont.

The other day I told my grandma I was anarchist and she said it wasnt good and that they were people that put bombs evrywhere and wanted chaos. Luckily I can't alienate my grandma.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

See contrapoint's video on alpha males.

Alpha and beta doesn't even exist in wolves naturally so the concept doesn't even mean Anything.

Anyways I'm vegan, interested in open relationships and do not seek to breed so I guess l'm a "beta cuck" by nature lol.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

I dont really want to throw oil on the fire, but it's not green anarchists vs anarcho-transhumanism, it's anprims vs @h+. There is much less conflict between other brands of green anarchism such as solarpunk and @h+. There may be anticiv and @h+ conflicts, but even then it depends on our definition of civilization.

In arguments such as "authority vs anarchy", "vegan vs carnist", "privileged whites vs everyone else", and all the other arguments you cite, there is clearly one ideological stance that is anarchist and studied, and the other is bigoted and a uneducated. (I say ideologically bc pragmatically we dont all have the possibility/ressources to engage in these conflicts). It's the same with @h+ vs primitivsm: one ideal implies the death of 90% of humans and the other implies total liberation, from even our bodies's natural limits. Clearly those stances do not hold the same value, at least for true anarchists™.

Ps: on individualism vs collectivism, I stand with emma goldman an believe one implies the other, so it's not like the other exampes you made.


Random_Revolutionary wrote

Homepage: /all

I browse raddle twice or thrice a day, and check the news that come up. I try to read the articles most of the time, I dont do much "title" browsing, contrary to what I did when I was on reddit. I dont comment much bc there isnt much to say, since we all agree on most things. If anyone comments I read their comment