SomeIconoclast wrote

Yeah, I can; I work from home. Which is a trade off in of itself, since I have to work right after I eat breakfast until noon and start up again from 8 to midnight. I listen to D&D streams since those generally last the same amount of time. Unfortunately, it's not really the sort of thing I can turn my brain off for, a lot of specifications need to be met and they keep increasing.

My household really needs the money. I get paid a decent amount and it's temporary; which is a double-edged sword.

Words can't really describe the feeling of being able to buy anything I could see myself wanting in the immediate future (which isn't really all that extensive a list since I don't really enjoy that many things) but not enough to make a dent in my student loan debt.


SomeIconoclast wrote

I mean, it's the closest that they'll ever get to enacting their political agenda in any way. Tanks want to be like their precious strong-men but have no means to actually gain power because their ideology is so wildly unpopular within the regions that they live in so they have to resort to petty little power grabs within the 1's and 0's space in order to fill their hollow lives with a victory that they don't just co-opt from dead revolutionaries.


SomeIconoclast wrote

However, the theme of rugged individualism is a bit different from the more general anthropological individualism. Anthropological individualism (at least in the source I was reading) is the tendency towards supporting the individual over the group, whereas collectivist societies tend to support the group over the individual.

Right. I don't see where your objection is.

The West's rugged individualism isn't individualism in the Anthropological sense either; as I've already explained the dependence that rugged individualism has on the Capitalist demands that the many must forsake their interests for the benefit of the few, which is a direct contradiction with your definition of Anthropological individualism as well, since the overall system of Capitalism requires a collective-based morality in order to guilt-trip anyone with any anti-work or individualist tendency. The "individualism" spouted by Western culture is nominal, the overall view on individualism in any other sense by Western culture can be summed up as "it's selfish and therefore bad", it's opposition to individualism can be seen whenever the virtues of self-sacrifice, conformity, moralism, and pseudo-pacifism make themselves apparent.

Western "hyper-individualism" has no influence on Egoism or Anarchist philosophy, it fails at even supporting the individual over the group, it's far too focused on dominating other cultures or eliminating the "deviant" desires of individuals to be anything other than a collectivist project.

You asked to what extent anarchist philosophy (particularly Egoism) is just the refuse of Western "hyper-individualism" and I'm saying that there is no real connection between the two. If anything, I'd say that Individualist Anarchism was born because Western Individualist anarchists recognized that the "individualism" spouted by the culture that they hated was a sham and that Individualist anarchism was born from the desire for actual individualism, which is probably a bit closer to what you defined as Anthropological individualism.

In any case, I think you agree with me on at least a few points based on how you worded your response? I'm just posting this to clarify my argument because I'm not really sure what your objecting to (your use of "however" in the first sentence makes me think that there is some point of contention).


SomeIconoclast wrote

I'd argue that the "rugged individualism" championed by the West is quite different from Egoism (and anarchist philosophy). Rugged Individualism posits that an individual is totally self-reliant and independent; outright rejecting the notion that assistance from external actors (usually by peers or the state) is needed or even good. Anarchists (both social and individualist) by contrast, outright state that cooperation among peers is far more beneficial to the individual for various reasons.

Rugged individualism is far too moralistic, capitalistic, and (ironically) collectivist to have influenced egoism, far too compatible with capitalism to influence Anarchism. It is a Right-Wing concept, rhetoric involving it being pro-work, meritocratic horseshit that places a moral duty on the individual to not "burden others" regardless of the interest of the individual. It's a phantasm in every possible sense, even the most simplistic definition of individualist anarchism (Anything that attempts to exert force on an individual is an authority to be destroyed) is incompatible with it, as the tenants of rugged individualism are dependent on the collectivist economics of capitalism.

But I live in the West, so do with that as you will.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Other causes of death, including firearm- and traffic-related incidents, are responsible for another 88 law enforcement deaths so far in 2020, the fund says. In 2019, 99 officers had died from those causes by this point in the year.

The fact that they didn't even break into triple digits is the real tragedy. It's upsetting how safe it is to be a cop while every bootlicking, bottom-feeding, blue-suit buddy insists that there's a very real threat of someone crawling out from under a cop car and stabbing them to death with a shard of glass in broad daylight.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Most people were scared of me in high school; I was a dick to just about everyone who wasn't a teacher, a friend that lived 5 minutes away from me, and another friend who may or may not have had a crush on me.

I should have treated the last one better; she was really nice and ate with me during lunch when I would eat on a bench by myself.

I was the worst kind of misanthrope back then; the type so enamored with abstracts that I've since rejected that it manifested in smug haughtiness; with the combination of that and my deadened sense of empathy, I'm really surprised no one ever punched me in the face.


SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

You aren't a self-actualized human being unless you


If you haven't completely normalized this idea that work = good; you're a child.

Adulthood is when you're content with what everyone says is necessary and don't question anything.

It's funny because the tankies that dislike anti-work say the exact same shit.


SomeIconoclast wrote

black nationalist alts

Nah, it'd have to be real.

I wanna see actual Black Hebrew Israelites arguing with the Five-Percent Nation arguing with Pan-Africans arguing with Black Supremacists arguing with Black Christian Conservatives with a bunch of confused fans of a psuedo-BreadTuber wondering what the fuck is happening before said breadtuber rage quits and deletes everything.

2020's been awful, but in a super mundane way and I just wanna see some weird shit happen to redeem this year in some way.


SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

A lot of US pop-culture props up the "freedom fighter that breaks the rules in order to do what's right" as an ideal consistently within most action-oriented entertainment. But people who like that sort of black-and-white narrative piss and shit themselves when mobs of angry people start firebombing cop cars within the meatspace.

It gets really fucked up when this is applied to cops, feds, and soldiers. Think "the cool anti-hero that's willing to do what his by-the-book superiors won't and get the job done" and then all of a sudden government black-sites are cool because "the ends justify the means, trust me I've seen 24; The government has to break its own rules and regulations to keep us safe."


SomeIconoclast wrote

This is a kaleidoscope of political words and myer-briggs. The more I look at it, the more obvious it is that the assortment of...things here is almost entirely random

It has me down as Individualist and Stirnerean which is accurate by sheer coincidence but it also has both under essentialism and metaphysics which is...kind of the exact opposite of what egoism is about.

Why does "Communalism" have a picture of Marx in it? Classical Marxism is on a different quadrant.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Reply to comment by SomeIconoclast in Tanks against sex toys by ziq

is that implying that there cannot be such thing as a non-capitalist or counter-capitalist subculture in the West?

No. That's why I said "a" subculture instead of just "subcultures".

The thing is, an overwhelming number of subcultures within a capitalist culture is going to be capitalist.

Like, if a group of anti-capitalists come together and form a community in an area and develop a sub-culture, it would be anti/non-capitalist by nature but it would drowned out by the sheer number of other capitalist subcultures.

They're the "exceptions that prove the rule", basically.

But, yeah, non-capitalist or counter-capitalist subcultures can and do exist in the West.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Western lgbt culture is is pretty much just capitalism

A truly brilliant observation from a genius with the keenest sense of observation.

Nobody would have ever figured out that a subculture within the overwhelmingly capitalist west was also capitalist!

I haven't been on raddle for a week and I'm already burned out.


SomeIconoclast wrote

My personal experience with academia is thankfully limited to 3 years; it completely killed whatever optimism I had and kept giving me reasons to hate it.

One example that stood out was that apparently when you get into honor society in Engineering, you automatically get higher pay for having it on your resume. That was information given out to the classroom during introductions and was presented as a positive. If you live there, your entire quality of life is determined by how much money you have because everything needs to have a goddamn caste system; I was forced to attend summer classes because those mandatory and the housing, while nice, was triple what I was paying in Spring! It's disgustingly elitist and whatever politics there are milquetoast liberalism with some hints of mild Socialism if you took a humanities course.

Therapy was often touted because the entire student body fucking hated college and the stress of trying to pass your classes eats you alive because you're taking thousands of dollars in government loans and every professor hammers the threat of student loan debt into your head if you fuck up, are on the path to fucking up, or you're beginning your first day of class.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Yeah, if anything wins the working class over, it's the knowledge that a bunch of academics cite the dead founder of an ideology more.

Everyone knows that consensus among big numbers proves that something is true, right, and/or good and that's why we all live in a post-scarcity, internationalist, communist world.

What a sad bunch of dorks.


SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

No, you see, it's "Death to Western Imperialism"

Only the west is capable of Imperialism.

Any non-Western states that commit acts that can be misunderstood as Imperialism aren't really Imperialist because only the west is capable of Imperialism.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Imagine thinking that CIA Psyops could create the entire anarchist movement

Max Stirner was an anarchist and thus a part of the anarchist movement and therefore a CIA psyop > Karl Marx came up with Historical materialism because of Stirner > Historical Materialism is therefore a product of a CIA psyop and every ideology birthed from Marx post-Historical materialism is a product of the CIA > every tankie is thus a CIA operative.



SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

Yeah, I read the comment; didn't know if she (CommunistIdiot) was actually being serious or not and I really didn't want to go swimming through their post history to find out.

But, yeah, that promotion really helps.

That's pretty sad; thanks for indulging in my curiosity.

EDIT: Aw, shit, I completely blanked out on her second comment. That's my bad, sorry.