Vrik_IV

Vrik_IV wrote

When imagining the thinking, I took out the last two sentences of your italics. As it seems to me that it is never a practical consideration, but a lack of imagination: the state is the world, anarchy inexistent, no state no people, we don't even have a name for that, even stateless and other equivalents is something that someone is lacking, always by negation of a given condition

(in some languages there might be a word of general use to the speakers of it, but that language isn't setting hegemony; even in english there might be a word I'm unaware of, but I don't think it could be said to be of general use)

2

Vrik_IV OP wrote

Reply to comment by idioomsus in Alright by Vrik_IV

That's cool, you found a loophole, keep it up, beware of the forum's law enforcement and on the lookout for a law change on the sly, that is a frequent thing power does

2

Vrik_IV wrote

Yes, I did put a lot more in your message, namely that in spite of my spite, I took you for someone who would read it and not answer with

if u dont think race plays a part in ppls experiences than idk we just wont agree.
I never claimed that white ppl only experience joy and love and acceptance but that being whote does grant u privileges in a racialized system as a whole.

And then to continue with

And dont assume who i am or my identity. Ud love for me to be some neurotypical unoppressed person so im easier to dismiss.

when, if anything, the assumption, if there could said for any to have been, instead of an undefinitive and accounted for starting point, was not that you were "some unoppressed neurotypical", rather something worse, the person making the easy packaging, the "voluntarily commiserative" as previously put, the enabler.

2

Vrik_IV wrote

Firstly, schizophrenia is a lie.

Secondly, let's take male and female to have correspondence with historical signifiers (as society wise they do).

Strongly disagree, deviance is judged differently, and for black people, to be considered dangerous is a given no matter how normalized one is. Hence, less violent behaviours are more likely to be punished psychiatrily with white people - other many factors enter here, but it also comes in handy that poor whites are ill and poor blacks are criminals, it fits into the overall narrative, this aside the similarities and differences between the outlined repression in both cases, not to say the actions themselves leading to it.

If a white amab has a respectable career accommodating the deviance, it is very unlikely that they haven't betrayed the maleness of the whole privileged standing - not the whole standing is gone, but an important part of it is diminished.

Current word on psych wards is let's be nice to the queers, and we decide who those are, what's that with the deep voice? Tie him right this second, we already have the box of the genders and there ain't no pronouns unless you agree to our equating of queer with submissive.

Lesbians are fucked, that isn't untrue, and they don't even get the grandiose gestures of fighting the orderlies in front of everybody, they get them good, and very hard to put up a good fight. Lesbians is a deviance too that warrants qualification.

Was unsure about italicizing deviance, probably shouldn't have, wanted to meet your own terms, and yeah, deviance is what you want to say, but you are a sympathetic one, out to care, who knows maybe you even throw your own layers of neurodivergence and struggle afterwards, with the imagined value in mind that I really don't care for of the voluntarily commiserative.

And this is what you people do to me, make me type a message in way better faith than my immediate desire to yell after reading it, while at the same time reading as unwarranted anticipated grievance, because apparently it is very very okay for most people, even here, that the most oppressive terms of a very bloody institution are taken as they are, as they come from science and medicine are intended for care and betterment and growth and healthiness and whatever bullshit.

This intersectionality trend is one of the most dishonest things I saw.

Going out, seems unlikely that will proceed further even if getting an answer. Don't care for the answers, in fact.

2

Vrik_IV wrote (edited )

Thanks for the shared material. I read The Progressive Plantation a few years ago, but will give the others a look (and maybe that one a re-read).

I too couldn't summarize histories, the thread I referred was mostly about a sort of speech that some anarchists come up with. Sometimes one can sort of try to imagine the decades that passed between a radical grandfather and a radical grandchild uttering the same exact sentences. So the movement has been white-dominated, but I referred mostly to the veiled hostility of the grandchild having reached them by the earlier transmission of the grandfather, about a perceived treason way back.

Of course, even with the disclaimer of the refusal to summarise, this is a simplification. So, away from that context, what I can say from what I read and see here is that, while the white radical oldtimers that lived through black liberation are generally sympathetic in a far from pure but somewhat likeable way, and the young white radicals are whatever they can be, just making their own before setting on a generational bent as authority wants its narrative to happen (hopefully they - we? - will be the first ones to escape that, but seems doubtful), the middle-aged white radicals have some tenebrous latent things there, they got into the aesthetic and now can't escape the want for growth they would like to crush.

Even as a generalization, this is not as precise as could be, but what I mean mostly is to justify the overall angle, should that be resonant to yours and others' observation and experience. And the specific struggles, contexts, and people, are not fully comparable, although an overlaping colonial history as well an imposed subsequent subcultural exchange, that mostly is a one-way traffic, as well as whatever other complex interactions arose, created and continue to create affinities of thought and action the respective carriers of black and white, or at least that is what it seems from this distance.

3

Vrik_IV wrote (edited )

I don't have US context - would you say it is fair to speak about a white anarchist resentment thread over the years there that comes from 30s, 60s, (and others and in between) radical struggles when anarchists as a we shall overcome political project wanted to have their owned land communes while the inner city getting fucked over every day turned to the bad authoritarians, black panthers and others, and their bad focus on among other things, bad internationalist solidarity with national liberation movements in Africa?

I am not really referring to anything I've read or seen speaking about this divide, but I'm sort of basing this suspicion on my experience with people in general, the divide that is seemingly defined by absence whenever going through material from that time and place, and I guess also the fact that it would resemble discourse that I've personally witnessed in a place far away.

Either way, the specificities and time thread may differ, but "[insert identified group under heavy fire] are actually for the hierarchy that is subjugating them" seems to be actually a typical sentence most everywhere at anytime, by people from all walks, when it becomes convenient to have a shield for whatever dominance/guilt/inaction/others.

And that 'non radical black people' are just liberals is a dubious assertion on many fronts too.

And, if I may imagine a scenario less charitably, "who is this white person asking me about the cops? what do they want from me? give them nothing, I'm out of here as soon as I can"

3

Vrik_IV wrote

Now with Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception, after finishing this unfinished Bolaño book where he reveals himself to have been very high into this whole homosexual thing, who woulda thought.

Probably won’t read much more than that until next thread, this may be more suited to another topic, but have been on a very gloomy streak that I hope to interrupt soon, and it’s not even mainly the dread, more the casual realization of all my conditioned alienation. Not new to me, had more of it than anybody I know, seen, or can imagine, have all it figured out, but have never successfully escaped it for long (when I did others took care of the job).

3

Vrik_IV wrote

About this one, the notion of waste has much to do with profit, and that which is classified as waste many times isn’t so, even by the standards of industrial practice.

That being said, not keen on the ‘humans’ being more deserving than the ‘animals’, on the appeals of legality and respectability, on the idea of ‘the poor’, and on the expectation of social responsibility on the part of owners, managers and companies.

5

Vrik_IV wrote (edited )

About the closing question, yes, but I’d say there is a difference between talking to people directly from the start and exclusionary vibe-checks. That ‘kind of thing’ is that, vibe-checks, not at all a raddle exclusive, of course, and not anything that can or should be controlled, so I may have phrased wrong the ‘addressed’ part, even if some reflection from each might be good. I am trying, however, to interact in such a way that others may also feel it’s okay to not reduce new people on first interaction, that it is not naive to not have barriers.

I am neither claiming to be completely immune to fabricated community nor that raddle isn’t a generally welcoming place. But this is mostly something that is so common it is done without second thought. Just look at the downvotes on this post - or is my interpretation of those as a barrier of speech a reverse equally nefarious reductiveness?

4

Vrik_IV wrote

I interpreted the first post as just an unpretentious small scale exposure of sorts of economic precepts. This description of mine does indeed read pretentious, but you get the idea.

Curiously enough, the best liked post they have so far is to my mind the worst, as it is explicit about corporate charity.

About this one, I don’t disagree with you necessarily, but seems honest enough, to come from experience and not seeking points, and it is not every reformist that would speak in terms of love, whatever one might think about that. Very far from worse than many a popular post, hence me wondering if there was some context.

boobbougger, apologies in advance for this speaking about your posts as if you weren’t here, instead of engaging directly. To be frank, I do think that kind of thing needs addressing around here, not the first time it happens, and it would piss me off a lot if I were you, as it already does in every interaction that drove me to seeking solace here.

3

Vrik_IV wrote

This latin native time traveller I know, who is still getting accustomed to these new tools of communication and other current day differences, asked me to tell you that they (gender neutral since BC) strongly disagree, and that you could have given some consideration to the subjectivity from where such a claim arose.

in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

3

Vrik_IV wrote (edited )

Boa!

Preciso de tirar um tempo para ler o artigo com mais atenção, sobretudo a segunda metade. Provavelmente terei de recorrer ao original. Nem parece tradução automática, mas aquele "Vale do Silício" levanta a suspeita de que alguns sentidos se possam ter perdido.

Não percebo ao certo as fórmulas de ilustração - não imagino que uso possam ter quer para leitores leigos quer para leitores especializados. O texto não justifica nem contextualiza qualquer aplicação.

Em suma, o tema interessa-me muito, mas tenho algum cepticismo em relação a contra-hegemonias no geral, a vaga proposta subjacente (e explicitada no último parágrafo). E tenho alguma indecisão sobre se fazer qualquer prenúncio abrangente sobre construções algorítmicas seria justo ou um encerro dogmático meu.

3