autonomous_hippopotamus

2

autonomous_hippopotamus moderator wrote

Absolutely, and crypto-anarchism is about using cryptography to achieve anarchy. This isn't some altcoin enthusiasts club. I hope we can work here to expand the meaning of crypto-anarchism.

However, since 'crytpo' is now a meme, synonymous with crypto-currency, and falls under the category of cryptography in general. It is an appropriate topic for this group.It's also true that altcoins are becoming more and more ubiquitous, to the point where for some people it's necessary to have an altcoin wallet. So i encourage everyone to look into it and make informed decisions on the subject.

But yes, we should emphasize that we are not altcoin enthusiasts or even PRO crypto-currency. This is space is about cryptography in general and i encourage everyone to encrypt their chat, email, operating system, external storage, and everything else that can be encrypted. It's also useful to learn about analog cryptography.

9

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

I've been lurking on this site for over a year, I'm always seeing people give ziq shit, i'm sure there are legitimate criticisms as to the managing of the site or when a ban is justified or not, and i can see why people might disagree with him philosophically, but i've never ziq say anything reactionary.

It's also true that ziq, being (i believe) an admin and co-founder, is naturally going to be the target of both nazi trolls and tankie wreckers. Most of the criticism of ziq I see are vague and personal insults. The fact that there are so many open ziq haters who don't get banned says a lot.

7

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote (edited )

Hey welcome!

This can be a really cool place, you will find lots of people interested in computers, as well as post-leftistim, punk culture, and all sorts sorts of other things. I also like how this place tries to center people outside of the US and people of color generally.

If you're not a regular reddit user like myself, the format of the site might be a bit hard to get used to, but after a while you'll get used to it, it's very logical.

here are some of my favorite forums

f/decolonisation news and discussion on decolonization

/f/Anarchism obviously

/f/Green green anarchism, environomental issues etc.

/f/ACAB cuz fuck the police

/f/security_culture for staying safe on and off line

/f/freeAsInFreedom for all things open source software

here's a few groups i mod

/f/crypto crypto-anarchism: cryptography, cyberpunk etc.

/f/fedbook for talking shit about facebook

/f/wiki for working on the wiki page

This place can get boring sometimes, so please don't hesitate to post things you find interesting or ask questions / start a discussion.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

I guess the question is-- Is there any free langauge learning software ?

And the answer is -- FUCK NO

I had a pirated version of rossetta stone v3 which was not as in depth as i thought, as well as a cracked version of Babble, which only has Spanish Spanish, not latin american spanish.. and it also seems like they've fixed whatever vuln allowed that to happen.

Basically, i've fallen back on youtube, textbooks and dictionaries.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

On the collapse thing, i just don't think that Ecological Crises will lead necessarily to the collapse of Capitalism and the State, let alone Civilization itself. Even if Billions of people die, and large areas of of inhabited land go underwater, the rulers of countries across the world are well prepared for this to happen: they have built massive bunkers in the mounters and military plans drawn up for every possible scenario.

The problem is many people view collapse as this sudden, apocalyptic event, rather than a very protracted process of ecological destruction. Technology -- digital networks, computers and cellphones etc. would not be destroyed by this process, but remain as means of continued coordination among surviving humans,. I think certain areas would become ungovernable but the idea that civilization would collapse is wishful thinking.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Cool, u/Tequila_Wolf I appreciate all the work you do keeping this place running, I am glad you've made use of this space, i know i've been pretty lazy as a mod, but i intend to be a bit more active in the near future.

As for w/Etiquette . I think it's a great idea and would be very helpful. I was thinking about this earlier: In real life organizing it's common to set out list of norms for engaging in productive conversation during a meeting or summit. . .

. . . of course these are all voluntary norms, not a ToS or anything, but if we establish a set of community norms on a cultural level it might make it easy to weed out trolls and wreckers.

Obviously we'd have have the standard rules: no sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia list... and maybe have a clause against petty language policing or baseless, derailing call-outs . . .

I need to get around to writing an article on Rogerian Argumentation, as it sets out some nice guidelines in engaging in respectful, productive debate.

Here's a short list of norms, just a draft, this should all be reworded to be as brief as possible

treat everyone with respect - ya know

Be Honest / practice radical honesty - Say what you think and what you feel, don't hide your intentions or hesitate to call out bullshit when you see it ( i don't know if i want to use that phrase as radical-honestyTM is basically a self-help cult)

Stay on topic - focus on the topic of the post and the purpose of the forum. While going on tangents sometimes is fine, but remember what you post on raddle is public and our conversations here are for the purpose of informing, educating and stimulating thought and debate.

Focus on what you have in common - clearly indicate where the person is correct and what you agree with them with, this provides a basis for building consensus and makes it easier to persuade people to your point of view, or agreeing to respectfully disagree.

Be open minded and anti-dogamtic - Be willing to admit when you are wrong, and engage in self-criticism. Don't assume you know everything, come with a willingness to question everything an learn something new. (by self-criticism i don't mean self-crit or gtfo! i mean a personal process of critical self-reflection, not the Maoist ritual of humiliating confession and self-flagulation.)

Speak to people as comrades

Make an effort to read and understand other people's arguments - make a sincere attempt to learn where the other person is coming from.

Separate the argument from the person / Don't make personal Attacks / Give people the benefit of the doubt - just because someone has flawed views does not mean they are a crypto nazi or something, debate people in a respectful way. We have all held shitty views, if you disagree with someone explain to them why and how they are mistaken, and provide resources for them to educate themselves.

Provide Citations when possible - Show your work, if you are aware of something most people don't know, show people where you got it from, explain the reasoning behind your opinions so other people can see where you're coming from.

Don't snitch Jacket, or make baseless accusations - We will inevitably encounter fake accounts, reactionary infiltrators etc. Accusing everyone you don't like of being a nazi-sock-puppet or agent provocateur is not helpful and contributes to an environment of hostility and paranoia. If someone is a infiltrator they will reveal themselves eventually. ( i don't know quite how to say this, maybe this is a few different rules, i want to say something about baseless accusations while also respecting people's freedom to make call-outs when they are warranted, idfk im not a lawyer . . . )

Don't Take shit personally - don't waste everyone's times personal disagreements and petty emotional arguments. Personal rivalries and dislikes are unavoidable, but we can deal with these problems without embarassing ourselves or wasting other people's time. In most cases, respecfully disagreeing while avoiding personal attacks will do, if you can't stand someone, Avoiding people and mantaining a respectful distance quashes a beef. Alfredo Bonanno said something like "You don't have to like someone to have affinity with them."

Don't talk out your ass - If you haven't researched something, don't speak as if you are an expert or spread false information. Be honest about your level of understanding, If someone more knowledgeable than you corrects you, you should either concede you were mistaken or at least explain your disagreement respectfully.

( Mao had the slogan 'No Investigation, No right to Speak' but fuck him, people still have the right to speak but everyone is subject to accountability . )

Don't *splain - if you are not gay/tran/black/etc. to speak as an authority over people who are gay/trans/black/etc. that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion or express disagreement, this just means show deference to those who are personally effected by certain issues.

Avoid Sectarianism (except against tankies) - There are a wide range of revolutionary schools, traditions, tendencies and sects, you can't assume your tendency is necessarily the correct one on every issue, and we must accept there are certain positions on which every tendency will not budge. Let's try to cut down on sectarian shit talking and arguments that go nowhere. Also fuck tankies.

Fuck tankies - jk but not really

Thanks for reading, i'll try to work someone more concrete over the next week or so there's something solid to go on the wiki.

Any suggestions/criticisms are very welcome.

Note: the final form of the "norms" shouldn't be this wordy, i just wanted to give a clear idea of the intent of the norms.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote (edited )

I think it's important to make certain methodological distinctions.

When you talk about whether technology is neutral, and if it's politicized there's a difference between a specific historical form of technology -- the actually existing technology, and that technology as such; in the abstract, and all the potentiality that it represents.

Does the mass media grow necessarily out of writing as such, or the mass media an extension of a particular power structure: just one possible implementation of that technology? Yes, writing is utilized towards the ends of domination, but it's not the cause of domination. You have to look outside any given technology to determine who is using it for whatever end.

So like i said above, technology is in some ways neutral in other ways not. Writing has historically been a tool of rulership and management, of manipulation and social control. It has also been a mediium of expressing love and desire, pursuing freedom, and coordinating revolt.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Transhumanism is just as apocalyptic and utopian as Primitivism. The idea of the singularity and quest for immortality are basically mystical and misguided, even dangerous in some case. Many transhumanists are some kind of anarcho-capitalist or authoritarian socialist, i have had transhumanists tell me that issues like pollution and climate change don't matter because eventually they will just invent some technology that will undo all these problems. Of course, they don't think that non-humans, or ecosystems have any value outside of human exploitation.

I would make an exception for those who may be fascinated by trans-humanism as a means of liberation from purely biological constraints. For example, many trans folks, likewise i know many people with disabilities, say people with acute autism, are able to communicate or develop other skills only thanks to computers and related technologies. But fascination is not dogmatic adherence. We can recognize that technology can be liberatory without worshiping technology as a messianic force.

Regardless of how you view tehnology in general, Medical Technology (perhaps liberated from a certain institutional or ) is something humans literally can't live without. The medical profession and the institutional context of medicine ( the history of racism, sexism, violence against the mentally ill etc.) should be critiqued or or some ways abolished, but medical science is something we must hold on to as a species and make available to everyone.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Well i can respect your point of view. And i would regard some primitivists as enemies particularly cults like Deep Green Resistance, and asorted transphobes and general xenophobes who asosciate in that milieu. But i wouldn't say Prims are enemies by default, i've known lots of anarcho-primtivists who are all around descent anarchists/activists who support trans rights and aren't crypto eugenicists.

With Post-Civ there seems to be a pretty broad spectrum of belief on the question of technology, so it might not be accurate to say all post-civ folks believe in going back to some low tech, tribal organization, though i'm sure there's people who believe that. But i do think you can be critical of anthropocentrism without being a self-hated human and celebrating the deaths of billions of people, but that's just me.

11

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

so uh, speaking as a person who is clearly out of the loop on whatever drama you're refering to

if you think someone should be banned you should make make a specific call out directed at them articulating what they have done which warrants them being banned. A person can act abusive or destructive without explicitly breaking the rules, and you shouldn't' be afraid to hold people accountable. If there isn't some kind of procedure for holding people accountable then maybe that's something we need to work on.

But just calling somebody a "sociopathic liar" (a little ableist there) and refusing to name names is not helpful at all, maybe this person actually hasn't committed any bannible offense, and you just have some weird personal beef with them. Idfk

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

yeah raddle lacks descent mobile browser support, I use it with javascript off on the tor browser without JS and it always works fine.

What we really need is a mobile app.

For now I'd recommend people just use a separate tor-browser install on a desktop just for raddle and Orfox on mobile.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Come on that's not really fair or accurate.

Like it or not, anarcho-primitivists played a big role in the radical environmentalist movement from Earth First! to the Earth and Animal Liberation Fronts. Anprims were among the pioneers of many forms of direct action like tree sitting/spiking and other forms of sabotage (contemporary insurrectionary tactics in particular have had many primtiivist contributions) , the experiences of anprims in these actions helped inform the contemporary set of practices known as 'security culture', and to a large extent the now omnipresent method of 'consensus building' was popularized by movements which anarcho-primitivists took part in. Anarcho-primitivists have consistantly played an active role in anarchist organizing efforts from the alter-globalization movement, to the spread of groups like Food not Bombs, to Occupy and beyond. To write anarcho-primitivism out of the history of anarchism in north america, europe, or latin america is to falsify and distort the historical record.

That being said I strongly disagree with many of their beliefs--particularly the idea of collapse--and there are non-anarchist-primitivsts who are frankly fascist entryists. But comparing anarcho-primtiivists, who are consistantly anti-captialist, anti-statists and anti-patrairchy, to anarcho-capitalists is just in bad baith.

In my opinion primtivism helped fill a void in anarchist thought at a particularly time and served as an important counter to the ecocidal humanist tradition and it's lack of ecological consciousness. It should be kept in mind Primtivists were the anarchists who continued to engage in direct action while other tendencies like anarcho-syndicalism had all but disapeared. But at this point it has out lived it's usefulness, and has made it's failings obvious to everything, we should take what we can learn from the history and literature and burn the rest.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Yeah i personally prefer to use the term green anarchist without other adjectives. There's a diverse tradition of ecologically minded anarchists and while there is a lot of great stuff i also don't want lock myself into some obscure sect with its historical baggage or muddled thinking.

I went through a primitivist phase myself, not that i ever identified as that, was just attracted to alot of the ideas--the critique of technology, of humanism, the idea of "biocentrism" and the idea that human beings are animals-- but clearly there are some severe limits to that kind of thinking, There's also alot of reactionary stuff in that scene, like the concern over 'overpopulation', anti-vaxxer shit, transphobia, the racist fetishism of indigenous peoples' etc. etc.

But i also see alot of problems with, for example, Bookchin's ideas, like the idea of managing nature rationality. Not to mention the extremes of Transhumanism, or the techno-utopian thinking still advocated by most ancoms.

I think as green anarchists we should critique anthropocentrism and the human domination of other animals and the biosphere, while also adopting a scientific epistemology, taking into account the lessons of evolutionary biology, anthropology and other disciplines. In terms of technology i think we should adopt a kind of minimalist program -- how to we produce more with less ? how can we live more free and fulfilling lives while consuming less energy and natural resources? how do we produce enough food for everyone to eat while also respecting wilderness ?

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

yeah it's an interesting relationship between them, I tend to agree with Voline about Makhno, that he was a kind of petty warlord, amoral and authoritarian. But the fact that Voline, a harsh critic of Makno was so prominent proves that the Free Territory was not just some private fiefdom of a militia leader but a vibrant, pluralistic political project.

3

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

really good little read.

I would add that this comes down to your individual threat model.

If you are involved in direct action, then you should consider not talking about it on social media at all. Some people might choose to do so and can be valuable to a movement as a kind of public face and voice of a movement, but there is a twin danger there that this person might be targeted by the police (something they should be made aware of) but also that this person becomes a celebrity and is treated as a defacto leader.

I think for most activists anonymouse report backs and interviews are a better way to get your message out, while other people, disconnected from the organizing work should be spreading this information.

Naturally there are people with a low threat model, whom are not necessarily involved in activism in real life, such people do a valuable service in promoting stories. They too take on a certain level of risk but this is lower than one who is public and engaged in irl activism.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

You're make a leap here from the general ( information exchange ) to the particular (the mass media in modern society ).

Clearly information exchange can take many forms--it can take place through a variety of media--(speeches, letters, telegraph, radio, tweets etc.) Within a variety of social structures.

Historically the creation of new forms of media have let to social upheavals because oppressed groups could then coordinate their rebellion.

So i think we can say information exchange is nuetral in that it can be appropriated either for oppressive or liberatory aims. Though i would agree that we are confronted with a particular form of mass media that is oppressive, and so struggling against our rulers often takes the form of struggling against their means of control: the technology they have at their disposal.

3

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

well, what does nuetral mean exactly?

In one sense i think technological forms are not nuetral, like the autonomobile, the TV etc. All these reflect a certain social organization, certain cultural values. Likewise i think we can reject the idea science is 'objective' and devoid of these cultural value assumptions.

But i think by the neutrality of technology, we can mean simply that the underlying scientific principles or technics can be re-appropriated to new ends, applied in a way that reflect our own values. This means the creation of new forms of technology, not simply the discarding of technology as such.

The primitivist rejection of technology in general is just ridiculous, they will tell you point blank that no technology can ever be used for liberatory purposes whatsoever while they set up websites, make documentaries, podcasts etc. to spread their apocalyptic message.

While they might make good points sometimes they don't have a coherent critique of technology, they don't even recognize that hunter gatherers require for their very survival highly complex set of technics for the manufacture of weapons, clothes and shelter, harvesting of forest produce and the hunting of prey. I guess they assume humans were able to take down fucking Mastodons purely by virtue of their instincts.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Isn't it possible that post-civ can

a) reject anthropocentrism: the idea human beings are inherently superior, more important than other lifeforms and therefore have the right to dominate and exploit nature

while also

b) Recognizing that we are humans, and as a species have distinct interests when it comes to our survival (as both individuals and as a species) and have to utilize technology, there's a certain level of environmental destruction/disruption that is unnavoidable but we can strive to minimize this.

Is that eco-extremism, or is that not post-civ ?