Here's what I have considered: You don't want to be convinced. You just want your settlers ideas validated and you are barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid.

I never had an interesting debate with racist white men crying about idpol.

You are slandering yourself.

I genuinely don't think that had you truly understood the devastation brought upon by colonialism you'd come here to cry about being called a settler. Have a perspective.

You can be anti-racist and nobody will call you a racist, but I am labeled as a "settler" by birth even though I did nothing to earn that negative title other than be born. The same title used for Columbus and every other despicable man who actively did the settling. That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm very sure a lot of anti-racist activists have been called racists by the very people they were trying to help. And I'm also sure most of them, if not all, would have agreed with them. We live in a racist society and to think that just declaring yourself an anti-racist somehow purifies you is delusional, to put it kindly.

Your response didn't address my arguments, you just used identity politics against me. Like I said, aren't we supposed to be critical of that?

There is no argument to address. You are spewing the typical alt-right anti-idpol bullshit talking points, thinking that your mild discomfort with a word that I'm sure you've never been called in your face is somehow more important than the many nasty words that indigenous peoples are being called every fucking day (and yet, harrowingly, this is still the least of their problems).

You are being called a settler because you still benefit from colonisation, whereas the people who were colonised are still disadvantaged by it. This is incomparable to being assumed you are a rapist because of your gender. The former is a reality; the latter is a false analogy.

The very fact that you are having an issue with a stupid word indicates you might not be very knowledgeable about the inconceivable harm that colonisation has done to the indigenous people. Just look up what names they've been called throughout history until the present day by the settlers and their children.

Must we always bear the sins of our fathers?

Are you one of those types who spams '#notallmen' every time a woman complains about sexual assault? When you hear a POC rant about white supremacy, do you remind them that there are white people who are not racist? Or that things are much better than they were 100 years ago? I assume you don't, so why care about being called a settler (and indirectly so)?

Yes, you might be doing everything right -- you are considerate, you have educated yourself and even actively fight to improve the lives of the indigenous people. But the fact is that indigenous people are still the most disadvantaged group of peoples on the earth and have to put up with far worse assaults than being made mildly uncomfortable by being called a stupid word. So suck it up and let people who had everything taken from them lose some steam. This truly is not something to be bothered about, and especially not when you still actively benefit from your whiteness.

How are you doing? Fabulous. Yourself?

Where can I get this anarcho-optimism? Asking for a friend.

I see! If it comes from some weird Christian notions of women and men not being able to be in the same room without kicking it, then it's definitely unreasonable and annoying. But please try to broach it gently. Pregnant women often feel unattractive and deeply vulnerable. Now more than ever she is dependent on you and that must be aggravating her anxiety about you cheating on her and thus not being there for her when she needs you the most.

In addition to that, women (especially religious women) are often blamed for 'losing' their husbands to other women and seen as 'damaged goods' when that happens, which is probably why she's taking it upon herself to 'control' your access to your female colleagues. So please be patient with her and give her some time to understand your position without dismissing her worries. There's more for her to lose, socially and materially, as a woman and mother than for you as a man and father. (And please, don't take it as me saying you wrong in any way, because you are not. But allow her to articulate her anxieties and be empathic instead of brushing them off as simply controlling/parochial.)

Yes, you are right to be ticked off by it. Controlling might be a strong word for this situation, but it's certainly in that 'genre.'

The way you write about it makes it sound like it's just this one-off case of her being jealous and not a typical reaction. So perhaps this is not about jealousy per se? Maybe she's feeling neglected, overwhelmed and stressed, and is taking it out in this way?

I think you should ask her to join and maybe even think about something nice and relaxing for just the two of you.

My approach to reds' comforting lies has always been to burst their bubbles without any glamor.

I saw and thoroughly enjoyed it. RIP Dragonoa! To honour them, I never visited r/@ again.

I didn't necessarily mean to be gentle with the confused, but rather to make the FAQ cool -- punchy, fun, flippant even, but still true to what you (we?) want to get across. There's this beautiful simplicity to anarchism that doesn't need too many words to explain.

A lot of reds/socdems are attracted to anarchism (specifically, what they consider anarchism) because it is countercultural and I think this should be harnessed for our purposes. We shouldn't be 'competing' with the anarchist library FAQ or try to 'correct' it. We should ignore it entirely and do something that suits our purposes without a care about whether it alienates those who would never cross to our side anyway.

Here's a not-so-flippant idea: Let Defasher write that FAQ.

I think we have to consider that an anarchist FAQ is, and can only be, an expression of 'red' anarchisms.

This is a really good point.

I agree with your thoughts and at the same time, I don't think FAQ is an inherently futile effort (I know this is not what you are saying, but for a lack of better words I'll leave it at that). It's quite helpful to have these ideas in one place. I'm pretty sure they have already changed a few minds and will change more in days to come.

Having said that, it may be worth thinking about it as a stepping stone. Perhaps FAQ is not the best 'medium' and perhaps, its current content is not addressing the really pressing issues. But perhaps it's something we have to get off our chest before we move on.

The 'red anarchism' is appealing because it has confident answers. It's also one giant bluff and people like to be bedazzled. In response, then, perhaps we should take seriously the anxieties that make prospective anarchists wary of anti-civ anarchism. We could start by 'glamorising' uncertainty. Although, admittedly, that's easier said than done.

wtf have I just read ??!? It's a god-awful analogy!

I'd say this is attributing too much political acumen and empathy to a person that has none of these traits. I don't think he'll run again, at least not seriously so. He just seems to be craving attention.

But then, I was sure he wouldn't be elected the first time, that Brexit would not have happened and that Boris Johnson would never be made a PM. If my political instinct is anything to go by, Trump may well make a comeback and trigger the second coming of Jesus Christ.

I thought the film was okay, but I don't plan to see it again. Quite impressed it mocked the tech billionaire guy, although, admittedly, only because the bar is so so terribly low these days anyway. The only thing I would change is the ending. I'd want to see the escapees die (either because the cryogenic machines didn't work, or because they got hit by the comet's debris). I understand that the point was that the rich get away with everything, but I don't think they'll get away with climate change (after all, who's going to cook for them, clean after them, build for them, etc.).

I only skimmed through the article because I have very little patience for this whole active/passive art consumption. All I got from it was that it tried to reinvent the good ol' idea of catharsis, except instead of emotional relief it focused on political validation. Which is fair, I guess. I just simply don't believe that art can really change anything, and I don't think any kind of praxis can do that either (and while I'm dispensing hot takes, can I also publically declare -- totally off-topic, but I need to get it off my chest -- that I really struggle to understand the sanctification of Mark Fisher; I genuinely don't get what people see in his texts).

If history is anything to go by, we are done. We only ever make nominal changes after the massive catastrophe and if anyone is going to survive climate change -- well, good luck to them! Trying to change the world sounds to me like Marxist megalomania.

FYI: 'Cultural Marxism' (or, originally, 'Cultural Bolshevism') is an anti-semitic term used by the Nazis to discredit Jewish philosophers and cultural critics. These days, it's been reappropriated by the alt-right & co to discredit anything mildly woke.

Having said that, you are correct in saying that this whole empowering/disempowering way of thinking about art and culture is inherently Marxist. The problem, as I see it, is that it's underpinned by the belief that art can be revolutionary/political in the sense of transforming the masses into something more palatable. I would say that is just a pipe dream.

Art certainly can have an impact upon an individual and maybe even substantially change his/her/their political views (given they are privileged enough to access it), but it will never usher any significant political change (art can record them and reflect upon them, but not instigate them). For one, not everyone has a netflix subscription/cinema money to go see that film. Second, those who 'get it' are already on board with the whole 'climate crisis is a catastrophe' and are merely having their feelings validated. Those who think something like climate change is a matter of belief will never be convinced by a film (or a song, novel, w/e). So yeah, that's my five cents, I guess. Art's just entertainment that can sometimes be enlightening.

Yeah, come on, no female pirate would ever be 'democratically' elected to lead a woke communist ship! (not to mention, how can you have both democracy and no hierarchies??)

Sorry I should have been more specific. You should avoid uppers, which includes sugar and caffeine, as well as coke, meth, speed (etc.). It might seem counterintuitive, because you are feeling tired and lifeless, and so an obvious choice would be to use something that gets you on your feet and moving. But in the long term, uppers will tire you out even more and can also lead to anxiety and panic attacks, which you truly do not need in your current state.

As for downers, I specifically meant something like weed and hash. In my experience, they won't 'cure' you, but they can be useful for some momentary relief. Some people also swear by mushrooms and other psychedelics, but I don't have much experience with those.

Not being able to get out of bed each day is a symptom of depression*. You definitely need a break to rest. Make sure you eat healthily, avoid sugar and caffeine, and that you get enough sunlight (Vit D could help too). Try to exercise, or at least, take a walk regularly, ideally in nature. To calm your mind, stimulate your sense: use incense, get massages, watch a film/read a book (etc.). Drugs could also help, but they could also exacerbate your state, so be careful with them. If they give you enough kick to enjoy yourself and the things you used to like doing, then go for them. But if they bring you back to bed, then it's better to avoid them for a bit. Get as much sleep as you need (but mind you, actual 'sleep' and not laying in bed watching youtube videos for hours or w/e).

If it's possible, you should quit your job, or at least take a longer break from it. You should also actively seek social interactions (even if you don't feel like seeing anyone), provided you have a group of friends/family whose company you enjoy. If you live alone and, say, you have nice loving parents/siblings/partner, then maybe move in with them for a bit. It helps to have people around, but only when they are sympathetic to your circumstances. If the people are not an option, then get a cat (or similar).

Your body is telling you that's it's unhappy with how things are going, so try to consider its needs and the kind of changes in your life that would appease it. And please don't be hard on yourself. It's winter, we are entering the third year of a pandemic, the whole world is crashing down and there is virtually no hope that things will ever improve. It would be very weird if all this hasn't taken a toll on you.

• I don't want to argue here about a 'diagnosis.' I just want to suggest that what you are going through might be worse than you think.

Isn't it just tankies who yap about the 'lEfTiSt uNitY' as they take over reddit's subs and ban everyone who doesn't think Xi is the fairest of them all?

Sorry for the encounter, but from the outside, it's quite a hilarious exchange!

No they are not. It depends on the country and the mode of transport. You'll get checked at the airports (of course!), but not necessarily when you travel by car.

Yes --> https://marlonsolomon.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/forget-the-lizards-david-icke-is-dangerous/

I absolutely didn't mean that. The woman in question can legally access abortions, she just doesn't have money for it. In such circumstances, she should first be informed about the funding options. Illegal abortions should be the last resort because they are risky.

https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/health-article/impact-of-illegal-abortion/

If you think that having an abortion is as risky as taking Tylenol you truly shouldn't be sending desperate women to pharmacies with fake prescriptions (or whatever was your genius plan).

Doctors don't just check how far you are in, but also check your medical history, often do blood tests and tell you what, how much of it and in what order you should take. They also walk you through what are 'normal,' expected side-effects and when you should immediately seek medical help.

If a woman can legally have an abortion and her only obstacle is the lack of money, then she should be encouraged to first consider the funding options, because they might be available and they would make her abortion that much safer. Thank you for sending that pdf which confirms this (I hope you realise that by 'medical abortion' they mean it's done in consultation with medical professionals, i.e. under their supervision).

Pretending that having an abortion is the same as taking over-the-counter painkillers is what kills women. What you are suggesting should be the last resort.