TheLegendaryBirdMonster

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Friday Free Talk by /u/ThreadBot

3

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

anarcho-transhumanist lit is 2-3 essays each by william gillis, n1x, and Laboria Cuboniks. that's about it afaik.

I cant stand non-anarchist transhumainsts. At best they are musk-worshipping liberals or bitcoin-bros. at worst they're ancaps that like eugenics.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote (edited )

Yo read my comments... I've got no issue with post-civs! I disagree with them but they arent my enemies. (I disagree because i dont believe low tech tribe-like organisation better than high tech global human networks, I also believe that there is still a possibility for other futures than post-apocalyptic wastelands, and that at least some are better).

anprims are enemies thought. I dont know what words to use, but they give off an "anti-antrhropocentrist" vibe: humans are inferior, other lifeforms are more important, and everyone should die in order for nature to thrive.

1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote (edited )

"I don't remember saying anything about hating people"

except when the only way anprims/postciv can see humanity thrive is when 90% are dead or were never born.

'fuck the rest of the planet and the future of our children, my immediate pleasure is all that matters'

yep except its possible to do that in a sustainable way, like the bright green environmentalism we talked about a few months ago.

-3

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

am I wrong? I was tongue in cheek but did I not say the truth?

I consider anarchism as a "human-centered" ideology. By focusing so much on saving the envrionment and reducing tech at all cost, anprim ideology forgets the violence to people hidden behind the words they use. Even egoist anarchists call for other people to be egoists themselves, not reject their existence.

In a way anprimism is similar to ancaps, they try to form the world around a concept that is romantic when you think about it but isn't applicable in real life. (not the "corporate evil fucks" ancap, but the 2honest shallow-thinking internet libertarians" that believe anarcho-capitalism really is a good thing for everyone). (ancaps: NAP; anprims: return to "nature"). (lol i worded this so badly I hope you get what I mean)

keyword here is "at all cost". I do consider post-civ as anarchist, since they reject the anti-human part of anprimism while keeping the general "flow" of they have. I also consider anprims in the 80s as anarchists because it was "new" and not deeply studied. Now, thought, everyone can access critiques of anpimism. If people still claim themselves as such, they share too few values with actual anarchists to claim themselves as such.

Also I agree anrpim critiques of tech and civilization are interesting and I urge people to read a few if they have not yet. antranshumanist literature is few and far between, so I need to read from other schools to get my fix of theory; and I agree with a lot of anrpim critiques while having a conclusion that is a 180 of theirs.

-4

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

Anprims want to kill 90% of the world population and become hunter gatherers. IMO they have a hardcore "adam and eve" fetish. Like ancaps, modern anprims share with other brands of anarchism only the name. Most anprim litterature appeared in the 70s-80s.

Post-civ only hope that 90% of the world population dies, then they become junkyard-looting hunter gatherers. it's anprimism-lite that appeared after people started to critique anprims. the litterature is fairly recent, from the 2000s afaik

1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

local level politics (towns) is ok, I morally to support the ones I like (mostly green party where I'm from), I haven't arsed myself to vote yet tho.

Anything higher than is corrupt af if they have any chance of winning anything (be it economically or ideologically). I support philippe poutou because he's cool! I also support vermin supreme.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

sorry about the wrong vocab, you're right you never banned her, idk why i said that, probably meant banned from admin-ing.

I agree with your decision: it it normal, as an admin, to take decisions that will anger some users. I disagree with the way you handled it, but you prob know that so there isnt much to say anymore.

I missed that one, it probably explains your post then.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

You're rewriting history dude

morals and ethics don't mean anything when we're talking about not respecting the rules that we had as a small community. The unsaid rule you broke was manipulating votes and making yourself untrustable to users, as an admin. It was never explicited and I understand that some nero-atypical folks may not get the cue if it's not 100% explicit but you still knew you did "bad" since you were guilty and came out.

People dont resent you because you did "immoral" stuff, but because you fooled them. Most of us are here because we want a chill place where we arent bullshited by the admins. Lo a behold, you were as trustable as a reddit admin. If you just banned her and explained it the next day in meta, everything would have been almost fine.

also prob the heated arguemts with chomskyist where some folks got emotionally involved wiith a straw-man didnt help your case.