Comments

6

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Really when it comes to Propaganda of the Deed, the thing to remember is how easily it can go wrong and well, one deed isn't going to be enough. The State has a damn near limitless amount of resources, so they can and will go after you; expecting anything less than this is a damn foolish thing. You're in for a long fight. This isn't like Star Wars where you just hit this one target and the State goes down like the Death Star.

Though an example of Propaganda of the Deed that actually worked, is the brave anonymous soul who punched the living daylights out of Richard Spencer. Spencer has said that actions like that have led him to cancel many speeches and meetings, because it's no longer fun for him anymore. In addition, the punch served as a reminder to people on the Left and generally marginalized groups that deep down, the dragon is a coward who talks big, but flees at the first sign of trouble. The punch is proof that the dragon can be defeated by revealing its many weak points to the world.

The infamous punch was memed to hell and back thanks to nerds on the Internet, so chances are, everyone has seen it and has their favorite version of it. Me, I like any and all versions, but my personal fave is the one sit to DMX's "X Gon' Give it To Ya" so that's what I'll link to. Because having a video of Richard Spencer getting that shit-eating grin punched right off his stupid face, improves every thread, regardless of content.

https://youtu.be/fErUIxAK2HA

6

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Problem is, there's no such thing as being an ethical consumer in Capitalist-dominated society. You buy free trade coffee, because you don't like the idea of slave labor being used so you can have your morning cup of joe? Chances are the company selling you the free trade brand is owned by a company who will happily buy coffee often harvested by child labor. It all tangles together. Do what you can to minimize the harm you do, but again, there's no such thing as ethical consumerism.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I never got how they got the label "Neo-Liberal." Given that their ideology is pretty much the Ayn Rand version of Conservatism, it feels odd for them to have the label "liberal" at the end of their name. We can talk about how the Democratic Party sucks and how so many Liberal groups do not go far enough, but the philosophy governing Liberalism is that everyone should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as it harms no one else in the process, and power is dangerous, regardless of whether it is a government organization or a corporation, and needs to be kept in check. How is anything about the Neo-Liberals, well, liberal?

9

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

To an extent you should speak out, it should be more or less to proclaim to marginalized people that you have their backs.

There's no point in debating someone who isn't the least bit interested in a debate. Just GTFO as soon as possible. Maybe you would be the stone that shatters their protective ignorance dome, but it is very unlikely. Focus your efforts on stopping the SOBs instead.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

We also see this on a wider global scale. Industrial Civilization/capitalism was only able to keep going as long as it had was, until recently, there were always new lands to expand to with new resources to exploit. But Capitalism has effectively expanded to every corner of the globe; there's no new lands to exploit. Right now, Capitalism is trying to keep the game going by cannibalizing other capitalist nations, but there's an obvious flaw in all this.

4

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Everyone gets their own little cell, but there will be an agreed-upon common area, which is open for everyone.

There should also be a Noise rule. From 10 pm until 10 am, if you want to listen to music, you do it with headphones on.

I haven't quite worked out rules regarding chores. I do feel that everyone within the community should have something to do, be responsible for committing to the operations of it. Even if they are sick or hurt, if it is possible, we should find some small thing for them to do.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I don't know. I don't currently have kids, but I was relentlessly bullied from age 11 to age 18, so I know about that. I know I won't tell them to just ignore it, because then they'll leave you alone, because that shit doesn't work and it doesn't stop the insults for hurting. Or as the website, Sadly No!, puts it:

Ah, yes, the well-worn refrain to bullied kids everywhere. Ignore the bully and he’ll use your silence to believe he’s untouchable and torment you for months while you internalize your own worthlessness and believe you can’t even speak out about the abuse because it’ll just be “encouraging” the bully to beat you more.

No wait, I’m sorry, I got reality mixed up with platitude again. I meant to say, ignore the bully and he’ll go away and leave you alone, because you showed you were the bigger person and there’s nothing a bully loves more than someone they look down on for their identities or existence also acting smug that they are morally superior to them.

Ah damn, just keep accidentally kicking the switch for the reality/platitude inverter. But yeah, any bullied kid learned the hard way that this advice is garbage. Once a bully is on you, they tend to stick around and turning your back and trying to ignore just makes them more likely to escalate and feel invincible because they know that everyone likes a bully victim to suffer nobly and so the systems of power are behind them and will protect their actions.

I wouldn't want them to use physical violence to solve everything, but I will tell them that if someone swings at them, they have the right to defend themselves. To heck with what the zero tolerance policy says, just do it. Cops may be bastards, but even they recognize the basic idea of self-defense, that if Bill swung at Joe, Joe would be in the right if he hit him back.

Then again, I'm really not sure what to say. Most of my bullies were girls and girls go more for the psychological approach than the violent kind. I'm not sure what to do. You can't stop people from hating each other and it's damn hard to keep kids from whispering to each other. I try to think of solutions, but more often than not, I throw up my hands and say, "Stun baton, I could use to shock them every time they came up to me?" but there are probably hazards associated with that.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Well I am an American and I'm afraid that's usually how it goes. Libertarians in our neck of the woods seem to feel that only governments can oppress people and massive corporations are run by angels who would never dream of doing anything horrible or underhanded to succeed and that we would probably have cured cancer and brought about a utopia, were it not for government regulations crushing the cure cancer and bring about a utopia corporations out of spite.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

My experience with Libertarians is that they're Republicans who like to smoke pot. No matter how much they protest, they generally vote Republican across the board and don't disagree with the Republicans on much. Okay with the GOP's racism, militarism, and interfering with medical decisions between a woman and her doctor, but they part ways with them on drugs because, like I said, they like to smoke pot.

1

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote (edited )

"I just wanted to go around talking about how women and minorities are undeserving of basic rights due to them as citizens and human beings, in hopes that they will constantly fear for their lives. I never expected people to get all mad about it," sobs Milo.

As always, those who loudly brag about how they tell it like it is and use phrases like "Special Snowflakes" or "PC culture" or "SJW," will always prove to be the thinnest-skinned mothereffers when faced with any kind of opposition. No matter how scary the monster may be, they always turn out to have feet of clay.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I don't know if clothing is something we'd have to worry about in the event of a collapse. Industrial Civilization has produced a glut of clothing, enough that everybody on Earth could wear a new outfit everyday for the rest of their life, and still have plenty of clothing leftover. When you operate under the meme of Constant Production for the Sake of Production, you wind up with massive amounts of product, but scarce amounts of resources. Probably what we'd really need to do in the post-collapse, is learn how to mend and sew, take care of what was leftover.

I do believe that going completely nonvegan is impractical, especially for some environments. Cotton and many other vegan substitutes are much more labor-intensive and rougher on the environment than nonvegan stuff. They leech nutrition out of the soil pretty quickly and require an extensive amount of labor and pesticides. Plus, they tend to produce a poor quality product. A good pair of leather shoes will last longer; in the time it takes a pair of leather shoes to wear down, you probably will have had to purchase five pairs of PETA-approved gear. Considering the amount of labor and resources that go into manufacturing, leather footwear is probably friendlier to the environment and again, it lasts longer.

Though if a culture uses leather, it would be kind of bizarre to kill the cow and leave the rest to rot. Maybe in the post-collapse world, we should approach butchering animals by doing it Kosher-style. It is considered one of the most humane ways to butcher animals and there are many stringent standards it has to pass in order to qualify as Kosher.

7

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote (edited )

It's a classic case of "starting as a liberal, because things are effed up, but they just need to be reformed," before after many years, crossing over into "the system's not broken; it's doing exactly what it was intended to do in the first place" with also Dietrich Bonhoeffer's quote "We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims ground beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself."

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

It is a horrible practice, but at the same time, no one can police the whole world and it's a foolish thing to try; it amplifies problems, not solves them. About the only intervention I would suggest is spreading educational materials and providing a haven to anyone fleeing said abuses. Any other, like I said, would only exacerbate the problem and the people who would be in the most danger in that situation, are women and children because those are the most vulnerable populations in any conflict.

Like I said, I focused my concerns primarily on military options because most of the time, when people talk about intervention, unless they're talking about a drug-addicted relative, they mean some kind of military effort.

Reply to comment by /u/darsa in Can we change 'manarchist'? by /u/ziq

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

That's what I prefer to use even if it doesn't cover the full nature of anarchist beliefs. Let's just agree that smug White boys who patiently lecture women and minorities about how they simply have to ignore their concerns for the sake of the Revolution, suck and are, at times, more irritating than the Far Right Fuckwads. At least, the fuckwads don't pretend to care about you. Regardless of what we call them, we must not forget this.

4

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I seriously don't get TERFs like at all, their whole shit about how all this trans stuff is a plot to infiltrate women's spaces. I mean, sure trans people have the highest suicide rate of any demographic, are more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than any other minority group and when they are a victim, it's still perfectly okay for the defense to use the Trans Panic defense. Thanks to all this, they have an average lifespan of 30-35 years.

But they get to use the other bathroom and participate in discussions on issues related to feminism, which makes up for a greatly shortened lifespan, a life spent in poverty, and a constant fear of violence. :eyeroll:

7

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Women use passive language traits, because we are schooled by society that we should be agreeable and kind towards everyone in society. Guys, if you ever wonder why we don't just flat-out say "NO!" and instead hem and haw and step around the word, that's why. We also do that because based on firsthand experience, secondhand experience, or stories we've heard about on the news, we know just how badly this could end for us. Maybe that guy isn't a violent asshole with a sense of entitlement big enough to sink the Titanic, but we can't tell by looking, so we try to be gentle, tell them off without pissing them off. It's the equivalent of staving off a possibly aggressive dog by going, "Nice doggie, good doggie," until we can make an escape.

It's a terrible metaphor, because men aren't dogs, but it is the only apt one I can think of.

"I played the game I learned in seventh grade when a boy likes you. You make up some reason so that you protect their feelings, so that they don't get angry with you, and you still manage to escape. It's a skill a 12-year-old girl learns that she needs for the rest of her life." DR. JENNIFER KNUST, now a tenured professor at Boston University, on her struggle as a graduate student to avoid the attentions of a renowned Columbia University professor in the 1990s.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote (edited )

I'm curious as well. After all, Vietnam and the current War on Terror prove how easy it is to defeat an ideology via military violence. FGM is terrible, but I fail to see how intervention, sweeping in, guns blazing, and taking over, would solve it. I suppose he could mean nonviolent solutions like spreading education, but I doubt it. Usually when people use the word "intervention," they are almost invariably referring to military solutions.

Though the simplest and best answer is edmund has no basic knowledge of anthropology or tribal society like at all.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

And that's a bad thing how? So long as the actions of a community don't spill over and affect other communities, I fail to see how not interceding is a bad thing. Once it does spill over and affect other communities, then they have the right to deal with it, but again, any alliances will be loose ones. Most of the indigenous societies enjoyed less warfare and with women being roughly on equal footing with the men in the group.

I have a feeling you're one of those types who believe that humans are inherently brutish and cruel, but truth doesn't bear that out. Despite all the wargle-bargle about how people will riot in the face of a disaster, the truth is only a small percentage of bad seeds riot. The rest of the population band together and do what they can to help each other get through the situation. And often the population manages to organize themselves, decide who does what, and what needs to be done, without a lot of help from the State and without needing to brutally enforce their rule.

Again, for all the Survival of the Fittest talk, humans are inherently wired for altruism and empathy. And really, in the long run, altruism wins out. Yeah, looting and pillaging gets you plenty in the short-term, but the person who utilizes that strategy, pretty much can never relax their grip on power; if they show a moment of weakness, their people/enemies will take advantage of it.

Since mortality is the fact of the human condition (a person will get sick, hurt, and old, regardless of how strong they may be), eventually they will be in a position of vulnerability, needing the help of others. And there is a basic rule: piss off enough people and eventually some of them will come looking for you. Again, how many people would be willing to stick out their necks to help this asshole when things get rough for him.

If we must use the Survival of Fittest logic, if a style of living/beliefs work for a community, then the community will survive/prosper. If said beliefs are in fact terrible ones, then the community will collapse with the survivors probably opting to join other communities.

In any case, basic knowledge of nature is that diversity is strength. Having many different ways of living works better than our current One-Size-Fits-All standard which has only managed to keep going as long as it has because until recently, there were always new lands to expand to with new resources to exploit. The problem is now, Industrial Civilization has effectively expanded to every corner of the globe; there are no more new lands to exploit. It's keeping itself going by cannibalizing other Capitalist nations, but there's an obvious flaw in that strategy.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

If you'd studied any decent anthropology, you'd know that most indigenous people managed to take care of each other and live quite comfortably without a massive state-imposed hierarchy. In fact, the State as we know it, with its size, hierarchies, and massive inequalities, didn't really come into being until about 10,000 years ago, but Homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. So somehow for 90,000 years, we managed to live relatively peaceful lives without a State.

Somehow we managed to regulate ourselves and take care of our own and we'd manage to do so again. Despite all the doom and gloom on the news, extensive evidence says that humans are inherently wired for altruism; we want to be good and take care of each other. Studies with babies and toddlers have proven that it's a trait that kicks in fairly early.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I think many here are a little confused. There is hierarchy in raising a child, but the hierarchy between child and parent is considerably different from that of the one imposed by the State.

While the adult holds a position of leadership/authority, granting him/her the ability to make many decisions regarding the upbringing of their child, it's not the same kind of hierarchy as the State or as Corporations, where you have situations like Jeff Bezos, who has enough money that he could give $50,000 dollars to every one homeless person in American (which is estimated at 553,742) give 100,000 students a full ride to Harvard, covering four years of tuition, room, board, textbooks, and everything else, buy the entire gross national product of Iceland for a year, fund every US National Park for ten years, give every Amazon worker a $20,000 bonus, end world hunger, and after doing all that, he'd be left with $3.5 billion dollars, making him not only significantly richer than most people, he's sufficiently richer than a lot of other billionaires.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos's workers are barely scraping by on minimum wage, with many on some form of government assistance, pooping in bags and peeing in bottles in a desperate effort to keep up with the punishing pace set by their employers, and many are virtually homeless, due to being unable to cover rent or travel. There was an article in the UK Independent talking about how many of their Scotland workers are camping in tents in the woods near the warehouses, because they don't have the money to travel to and from work.

This kind of hierarchy is far different from the parent-child kind. In our world, if the parent lived in absolute luxury, sleeping in a massive mansion with god-only-knows-how-many rooms and bathrooms, eating gold leaf and wagyu beef every night for dinner, while their child spends their days and nights sleeping in in an uninsulated closet and finds food by digging through garbage cans, we would call that neglect and the child would be taken away and given to parents who aren't colossal assholes.

Then again, my vision of an anarchic society, is that there isn't one massive society that's identical across the board, but many different kinds with a wide variety of beliefs and customs, or in other words, tribal-band style living. The tribes would form loose Iroquois Confederation-style alliances, but will mostly do their own thing. The children in these societies would be raised in a communal fashion where while the child knows who their mom and dad is, they are also cared for by the other adults in the tribe, because again, all evidence points towards humans being wired for tribal-band style living.

Sorry everybody. I swear I had no intention of making this post so damn long. A spigot was turned and I wound up having more to say than I thought.