SomeIconoclast wrote

A person who is unsure of whether they'll vote for Trump or Biden.

I'm pretty sure that no one of this description exists.

Like, if you can vote in the US, you're either for Biden, for Trump, or are sensible enough to just not vote.

No one's struggling with any internal conflict on which of these two wastes of oxygen they're going to support.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Raddle is most definitely politically nihilist for the most part.

Political nihilism follows the characteristic nihilist's rejection of non-rationalized or non-proven assertions; in this case the necessity of the most fundamental social and political structures, such as government, family, and law.

If I can't use anarchist, then that's the next best thing.


SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

Worst of all, the boundary between personal freedom and state power has been shifted dramatically, and in some countries it will never move fully back. Surveillance, monitoring and restrictions are an everyday reality for many months to come. There is a danger that, subtly and imperceptibly, the public will grow accustomed to a smaller space for individual liberty and a bigger role for the state, changing the acceptability of other ideas — supposedly to secure a better future through larger, more powerful and more dominating governments.

I agree; let's abolish the state, starting with the police and military. No? Well, I guess conservatives are just full of hot air and empty rhetoric. Just replace any instance of "state" and "government" in this paragraph with their privatized counterparts listen as right-wingers call you a filthy communist.

Conservatives, and other champions of an open, free and enterprising society based on sound money, need to think about this now. Otherwise they will emerge from the dark and tragic tunnel of this crisis to find themselves in a landscape they don’t recognize. Of course, many will say “this is not the time to think about this.”

"Free society based on any kind of money" is oxymoronic. Can these people come up with any tactic other than fearmongering? God, this is such boring fucking read.

There will be a natural and justified desire to learn from the crisis and create a better world after it. Fundamental parts of that are improved international co-operation, pandemic prevention and national resilience, all of which have been found wanting in recent weeks.

Because if capitalism encourages anything, it's cooperation; and, as someone who lives in the hyper-capitalist US, the prevention of pandemics.

But the centre-right of politics will also have to work hard, and think deeply, to present a vision of a more environmentally sustainable society, with worthwhile work for all and fairness to young generations.

"Present a vision" is an interesting way of saying "make false promises towards".

It is richer capitalist societies that are best at cleaning up their environment, inventing new forms of energy and fostering the innovations we need to save ourselves from climate change. We need to show how tax and regulation can push market forces to do that, not forever tell everyone how to live.

This is the first time I've been exposed to a right-wing acknowledgement of climate change and it's making my head spin. Mostly because this is how most of the progressives in the country that I reside in think.

To get growth going again, dispensing with some of the rules that limit house building and business development is the way, not more requirements and planning zones

"Let's deal with climate change by not dealing with climate change."

Above all, building a world-class education system for people of all regions and backgrounds is the most pressing need.

"We need to colonize harder, and build a system of propaganda factories as far as the eye can see; my preaching against the breach of individual rights be damned.

This opinion piece has been adapted from a longer version.

I'm glad I don't edit opinions pieces for a living. Can you imagine?


SomeIconoclast wrote

Capitalists don't care what they co-opt as long as they get some money in the progress; people are at least a bit more aware of pollution and sustainability, so they'll latch on to that until it no longer suits them.

The project, which remains on track despite the coronavirus lockdown, is set to reveal partnerships with other food and drink companies later in the summer.

In any case, if it works out and actually helps out the environment, cool. I don't really care about why it's being done.


SomeIconoclast wrote

I have nothing specific in mind. My recommendation is to go to the Antifa forum. You should be able to find something there.

As a matter of fact, Someone asked for advice on the same topic; you might find something useful.

Others have said that it's pretty high risk with little payoff. If this is something you're serious about, good luck and be careful. These people group up because they hate others and are every bit as susceptible to infighting as leftists are; playing civnat could very well backfire.


SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

No. You wouldn't the first to want to, and you wouldn't the first to try. Others have succeeded; and a lot of these groups expose themselves pretty often.

I don't know what to do with much of the information besides report dangerous and illegal talk to the police (ACAB I know but they have their uses).

That's fairly troubling; you could probably do more good with that info if you were to just distribute it to few independent news sources; preferably those opposed to fascism. Cops are either apathetic to these groups or a part of them.


Reply to by vandemic

SomeIconoclast wrote

So anyways, any advice on finding common ground with an "anarcho-capitalist" who's into conspiracy theories ??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're on the right track with this person already. Unless they're bombarding you with texts that extol the virtues of capitalism; I'd say that you could easily make this connection work by doing what you've been doing thus far.

What's your take on "Free man on the land"?

From the little that I've actually looked into it, I'd say that the underlying principals are kinda "ehh". I find the idea that one can "opt out of law" laughable in that the state would never go for that nonsense; law is an absolute to the state, follow it or go to jail if you don't have the money or power to break it without consequence. It's more of a reaction built by a group of people that see society in terms of contracts and systems than any real attempts at deserting civilization or building something new. It's a replication of an already existing system (if law can be followed by individual interpretation, why even go through pretense of having it?), but with minute differences; it's reformism on a smaller scale, not anarchism.

How do you talk to someone about it in a way that offers a friendly critique?

I can't really help you there. You know this person better than I do; their reaction to any of my critiques can vary based on anything from how bluntly they're delivered to what words that are used.


Reply to by Crusty

SomeIconoclast wrote

I think tactically and analytically in everything I do, from the way I put my clothes on, to the way I navigate in crowds.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Growing up, my parents were anti war, anti military, and anti guns

They sound like better people than your possibly former CIA grandfather.

At my core, I hate modern government, fucked up capitalism, and war.

Then, uhh, don't join the structure that keeps these things afloat?

I hit the absolute jackpot with my genetic lottery.

Fuckin' YIKES.

They train you how to think for yourself,

You don't know how to think for yourself? Why are you even here?

make you extremely fit and lethal

If you can't come up with an effective workout regimen on your own, do you really think that you'd "save humanity" after civilization collapses?

value being able to move effectively and more importantly being able to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Just start working out. You don't even have to buy anything or join a gym.

Unlocking your mind's potential is a key step in reforming our government.

Oh, you're just fucking with us. Got it.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Are they crapping on the way liberalism uses identity or what exactly?

It depends on each person, to be honest. Sometimes it's a critique on the liberal tendency to use identity to advance and diversify the status quo (think "women should be allowed to bomb foreigners, too!) other times it's used as a dismissal of intersectionality for a more class centered approach to politics; sometimes even both.


Reply to comment by SomeIconoclast in Noam Chomsky Is a Liberal by ziq

SomeIconoclast wrote

Chomsky's a popular gateway to anarchism; anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism to be exact, at least in the US. People looking to get into anarchism most likely encounter the larger groups of people identifying as anarchist: ancaps and/or ancoms. In the case of the latter, Chomsky is used to explain the basic premise of anarchism; though Chomsky's watered down, liberal-friendly interpretation of anarchism is the only viewpoint of anarchism that budding lefty anarchists are informed of; Chomsky is the most contemporary; older theory is referenced, though not really recommended by others in my experience; the other anarchist theory that is frequently recommended is typically Kropotkin or even Bookchin, with post-leftists and anti-civs largely ignored, mocked, or vilified.

But all of that is barely relevant; anarchists are mocked because of Chomsky are typically mocked by the likes of opposing leftist factions because Chomsky has criticized authoritarian Communism and these factions see Chomsky as the central figure to anarchism. He's an easy target to criticize anarchism with because left anarchists have done a poor job with diversifying the theory that they use to introduce others to anarchism and haven't criticized Chomsky's interpretation of anarchism in their circles at all (though I have seen critiques of his more liberal takes in these circles, thankfully).

tldr; Chomsky's an easy intro to anarchism and also the most often used and non-anarchist leftists see him as the central theorist because lefty anarchists don't have many academics that actually espouse their ideas and they need academics to build up numbers because intellectual credibility is seen as necessary in political circles.


SomeIconoclast wrote

-watch a little bit of anime(rarely), -i play a little bit of games (rarely), -i don't read mangas or comics, -i hate smoking(cuz it can kill you, even from those ads, regardless of exaggeration),

I do most of those things as my main form of entertainment. I don't smoke, though; it killed my Grandpa.

-i hate tattoos(cuz it can hurt you when you get it in my opinion),

I'm entirely neutral on tattoos. Not interested in getting any; but people can express themselves and find companionship through body modification; so it's whatever.

-i don't have pets(and i never will because i don't want them (dogs) to bark at me, trying to hurt me in any type of way- i'm kinda scared of them but i wouldn't say too much),

I've got a frog. I've had cats and dogs before, but not anymore.

-i don't curse too much at other people, i don't watch much movies or tv shows, i don't know much about sports right now (but watch some of that too),

I usually swear with people rather than at them. I don't have cable and I'm not too much of a movie person. Usually an individual show or movie has to catch my interest before I even bother with it. I'm not into sports.

-i'm mostly shy,

I prefer to stay away from people, but I wouldn't say I'm shy.

-i go to church but don't know much about the bible right now(even though i'm from a african/afro-christian family),

I'm not religious. My dad is Christian, but I think my paternal grandmother converted to Judaism; dunno what my uncle was, and I'm not sure if my aunts are Christian most of my extended paternal family is most likely Christian, being southern Afro-American. My maternal family is mostly Christian, my mom's an atheist; they're of latine descent.

i don't know much about politics right now. -i hate horror movies -i don't pay bills so far

Not into horror movies. I'm more into sociology than actual politics, but I don't talk about either to anyone who isn't explicitly interested in either topic.

-i like online browsing, even taking notes about that

I'm more or less the same. I don't take notes, though.

-i like knowing company facts & other facts

I'm more interested in useless animal facts and words that I'll rarely ever use.

-i like watching tv ads anytime

I hate advertisements in all forms.

-i know almost every car name

I know next to nothing about cars.

-i like people who think discipline seems tough when it's really not

I'm more about determination than discipline.

-i like people who are passive aggressive but not too much

I...don't really get this one.

-i like imagining fake stories(even though i haven't done it in a while, if you don't get it don't ask)

I have a lot of characters and settings that I've had to write down on my computer. More than 200; I've been doing it for a while. I rarely ever write the actual stories, but I remember the ones that I think are really good.

-i have autism but don't know which type i have

I was diagnosed with Asperger's. My mom and dad didn't tell me until I left for college.

-i don't work out too much

I work out on a weekly basis.

-i don't hike outside

It's probably fun, but I don't do it often. It's often too hot and sunny.

-i don't flex with stuff i bought before

I buy stuff because I wanted it. I don't usually talk about my things.

-i rarely look at memes

I come across them, but I don't actively look for them.

-i'm not a gangster

I lack the attitude, money, power, and connections to call myself one.

-i'm not a nerd

I'm more of a social outcast; though I do have interests that would get me labeled a nerd.

-i don't remember my past(too much)

I remember very specific things, but everything about my childhood is kind of a blur.

-i don't have favorites(too much)

I have things that I really like, but I'm not always interested in them.

-but i am cool, smart and funny in my own way

I think that that's for other people to decide; I might just think I'm boring because I know myself so well and have been stuck with myself for my entire life.

-i don't know much about history, science, math and art also

I have a lot general facts rolling around in my head. I don't really remember specifics all that well unless I think that they're really interesting.


SomeIconoclast wrote

explain to libs

Your first mistake. Don't associate with libs if you can help it.


Your second. Debating is a waste of time and energy; "logic" is an abstract made by humans to explain how the world works as perceived by humans, so it's easily ignored because people aren't logical. Debates don't sway anyone who believe in things like "willpower" and "work ethic".

To actually answer your question, these people don't actually care about how you rebuttal, they've already decided that they're right and they'll stick to their argument because they'd have to admit that they didn't actually "earn" what they have otherise. These types usually have a "tough on crime" stance when it comes to law enforcement and love strengthening the economy; so just give some flimsy argument (it doesn't have to be well thought out, you're not doing this to "win") on how burglars, thieves, drug dealers, and gangs work harder than them and contribute to the economy far more than they do and how cops are communists and should be arrested (or killed if you want to really bewilder these people) for encouraging laziness among the poor and stifling capitalism. You weren't going to "win" this debate in any meaningful way, these people scoff at the idea of systemic racism and think that sweatshops are a necessary evil at worst; they wouldn't believe any argument that you gave them in good faith. Might as well have just fuck with 'em.


SomeIconoclast wrote

I can empathize for the most part. I've dropped out of University, wound up in debt, and I've moved back home with my mom and siblings, they've got their problematic sides, but you have to do what you have to do and my old roommates were much, much worse.

sometimes feel like I should give up on anarchism like even abandoning here (so much of the stuff here just feels depressing to read for me) because the state and capitalism both just seem too pervasive to deny them

I wouldn't give up on anarchism; you came to be sympathetic to it for a reason, right? If that reason is still there, you can't just not be an anarchist. But this is a stressful time for you and you're not doing any good to yourself or anyone else if you come to raddle or watch the news and tear your hair out because the world is cruel and it sucks. Focus on bettering your situation, I understand the need for companionship from people who think similar to you, but a lot of raddle's content is pretty bleak and you might log off worse for wear.

some of the things I want to do aren't exactly revolutionary, like playing games for fun because I'm bored (after either studying or doing nothing), and I find that I'd be going through too much risk I can't reasonably handle if I tried doing anything more illegal than merely piracy or even including that at times.

Don't worry about not fighting for "The Cause" every second of everyday of your life. That's borderline martyrdom; which I doubt anyone condones. If all it took was one person to topple the state and capitalism, it would have been done thousands of times over. None of us are so important and special that we could literally end the world as we know it on our own. Anarchists are people, not idols. And as far as illegalism goes, it's an anarchist reaction to the demands of capitalism, not an actual framework for destroying it in any meaningful way; you don't need to steal from faceless corporations to be an anarchist. And occasional piracy is good enough; don't beat yourself up for not doing "praxis" for "anarchist cred", they're both pretty useless outside of gathering clout on this little section of internet.

As far as your short term plans go, I can't help. Like I said, I'm in a similar position myself and I'm as lost as you are.


SomeIconoclast wrote (edited )

I don't think that the anarchist community has a central body of organization to tell you what is and what isn't okay to use in anarchism; if there is, it wouldn't be here and no one who regularly visits this website in good faith would actually treat it with anything other than derisive scorn.

If you're an ancom feel free to do it, just know that you'll probably attract a few non-anarchist leftists as well and that there are other actual ancom friendly symbols to use that don't invoke thoughts of the USSR such as: the classic circle-A, black cat, a black rose, the IWW emblem, and a bisected red & black flag. Pretty sure that's all we have and it's more than we'll need.

If you're not an ancom feel free to do it, just know that you'll probably attract a few non-anarchists as well and that there are other actual anarchist symbols to use that don't invoke thoughts of the USSR such as: the classic circle-A, a black rose, and a black flag. You could use that Stirner doodle if you want to be a meme spewing bore and squatters are closely tied to anarchism, so you could probably get away with using the international squatter's symbol as well. Pretty sure that's all we have and it's more than we'll ever need.


SomeIconoclast wrote

This "marginalized people need non marginalized people to vote" shtick is getting really fucking old. It was never a good argument. It was never really true, not even for marginalized folks within the fucking country you want your party to be in charge of; for those outside of the country? Forget it. Sure, you can say that Dems are the lesser evil (which is a lazy argument for someone who presumably believes in democracy), but it's really more like they're the polite, less overt evil. Fuck that. Dems have always just passively accepted norms while chiding radicals for rocking the boat whenever the latter fought for the same marginalized people to have some measure of dignity; only to claim credit for bringing reforms that barely improved the lives of marginalized people; Obama didn't believe in gay marriage until it was politically convenient and socially acceptable for him to do so. Your precious party is a dying husk filled with greedy, incompetent people that lack principle and a reason for anyone to waste even 5 minutes to try to empower. Your begging on raddle of all places should maybe clue you in on how dull your politics are.


SomeIconoclast wrote

I am human, I am young, and most importantly, I’m male. I don’t trust myself around hot women when it comes to business. I’m so weak, pathetic and creepy that I’d probably try and entice my hot tenant into having sex with me by offering lower rental rates.

What a disgusting little fucking worm. The fact that he knows that this shit is wrong and proceed to blame biology for his own lack of character while hiding behind the excuse that he's just joking about posting a list of ways to bring back the prima nocta makes my skin crawl.

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually slept with their tenant? It’s still on my “to do” list, quite literally.

"See, I'm being facetious, but there's also nothing stopping me from doing this thing that I said I wouldn't do."

Fucking creep.


SomeIconoclast wrote

Unfortunately, there's no "one size fits all" answer to this as it depends on a variety of factors; including the number of people you're around and how bigoted they are. Bigotry born from ignorance can be corrected and you'd be more successful if you dealt with it in private (assuming it's just one person making an ignorant statement). Bigotry born from genuine hatred or fear is much harder; your best bet is to hope that you're in the majority when it comes to opinion when you call them out on it and that the other people around you will at least passively support you; if you're not in the majority, you'll be seen as annoying, people love consensus; especially bigots. And trying to debate these types never works; pretty words and well constructed arguments crumble in the face of something as powerful as emotion.