halfway_prince

halfway_prince wrote

we've seen you go through a lot on this site. at least from my perspective it seems like you've gone from 100% fully committed to anarchism (lifestylism, big ideas for mutual aid) to 0% committed. What that indicates to me is there's a fear you have of only be semi-committed - that if you're going to do something you have to go all-in and be the absolute best most consistent anarchist better than all those fake reddit anarchists. Since it's proving difficult to do that and also stay mentally healthy / support your family etc. you've just said "well, screw all of it - i guess i'm a failure of an anarchist so may as well just accept it and deal with what's going on".

Treating a political ideology/movement as a hobby that you've decided you just aren't good enough at to try at all. It's the card you can always play as a white dude of just tapping out of any type of ideology or struggle bc it's not fun and exciting any more and it's easier to convince yourself that you must just not really believe those things, rather than do the hard work of like building a more sustainable lifestyle commitment to something you deeply believe which requires forgiveness and acceptance of your own limitations and mistakes.

I've also had this experience - and what you said about raddle feeling like an old friend that you just can't connect with resonates with me. Trying to genuinely unlearn the worst behaviors in this world isn't about posting the most edgy anti-civ shit on an internet forum. Nor is it easy to dedicate your life genuinely to trying to build / maintain some semblance of subversive lifestyle (where you can support yourself and family but still live out some little anarchies), but it's a hell of a lot easier than the path you're going down - gaslighting yourself into thinking you don't care about the issues you've dedicated hundreds of hours to reading and writing about until your brain turns to mush from the strain of cognitive dissonance (or more likely you turn ultra conservative bc you need to have a framework that can justify your choices).

i'll say what i always say - you need more people around who you can talk to in real life, and you may need to change your behaviors to get along with them. lower your standards if that's what's needed. you need a support system and something to tether you.

4

halfway_prince wrote

hm i feel you. Very interested in the meat consumption on the global rise - i must have missed that. Is it just a rate of increase proportionate to the growing population size? or is it that people are eating more meat? I was under the impression that people are eating less meat per person, but i could be woefully misinformed.

I think you're right and that analysis of soft/passive intervention coupled with a hard unforgiving line is important for a lot of movements to make change - i think the balance is what i'm interested in thinking through.

i guess i didn't intend my comments to come across as policing tone (even though i now see that's definitely a fair interpretation). I think tone isn't as important as the need for us to understand that to actually get people to transition to a vegan diet we need to overcome accessibiltiy barriers.

In other words, i'm cool with you yelling "all you fucking carnists need to stop your selfish athropocentric bullshit" as long as you're yelling it while offering them a bowl of dank vegan food or like handing out vegetables or cookbooks or in some other way making veganism more actively accessible to them.

Like i've literally had that situation with my room mate when they asked me "what are your opinions on me eating meat?" and i unapologetically ripped them for being selflish and lazy, but like the whole conversation was taking place over us cooking a vegan dinner together. The conversation has since stopped but we're still cooking a vegan meal several times a week together.

5

halfway_prince wrote

if you look at my other comments in this thread the point i'm trying to make is that all of your (and other's) responses to the 1-4 list are totally fair and solid and i'm in agreement with. But those refutations don't change the fact that they are barriers to access to veganism, and not everyone has reached those same conclusions or given it the same amount of critical thought! converting to veganism takes sustained energy and engagement with the theory and practice of veganism and we need to approach that with more compassion. You clearly have thought a lot about this and not everyone has. There's a way you can advance veganism but judging from a lot of the responses i'm receiving, don't think this thread is on the right track rn.

also i see you implying that i am not myself vegan so i'll copy the same thing i posted below:

"also for all y'all downvoting me - go find your local Food Not Bombs group and dedicate some time to actually providing accessible vegan food to your community. I'm out there every week helping to provide that shit to my community but when the other mutual aid group that happens to cook meat comes around asking if we can support their cooking efforts too you know i'm right there with them as well."

I don't like that i need to say that and like "build some credibility" for you to not make personal judgements about my arguments being based in selfish justifications (since i never implied that i'm not vegan) but i'm also understanding that maybe it will help you to internalize the message i'm trying to get across.

re. the common goal thing - i should have clarified i'm not referring to some unified goal across all "anarchists" i'm literally referring to me and lettuceleafer since i've been following their posting for a long time and (so far as i can tell) i agree with the vast majority of their praxis and general ideology and think they're a dope person almost all around.

I support you in finding your own personal goal esp if it's animal liberation (even if that's not precisely what mine is).

4

halfway_prince wrote

aghhhh lettuce!! even if you believe this statement wholeheartedly, it's just not "a true statement"!!

I'm sorry to get upset and always position myself against you, but you really have a lot of influence on the discussion that happen on this site and i'm so frustrated that you fixate on stuff like this!!

People who are strong can act weak. People who are weak can act strong!

You are great for being vegan!! but not everyone has come to the exact ideological conclusions as you!! that doesn't make them less capable of engaging in a fight for our common goal!!

5

halfway_prince wrote

i like zoom-zip (whether or not they like me) so could muster the energy to respond there - really can't with whatever peta talking points you pulled from this.

however, i agree there's a difference between praxis theory and ideology and i would appreciate if you could explain how you think that statement is relevant here?

Ideology is (google definition) "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." How does veganism and for the example i used - a belief in rematriation of land to indigenous folks - not fall into that category? There is vegan theory that informs ideology, and subsequently both have influence on an individual's praxis. So like.............whatcha gettin at here? Veganism has it's toes in all three?

4

halfway_prince wrote

  1. sorry my use of objectively is wrong - this is based on anecdotal experience of me and my group of vegans who cook together. We kinda just all agree it takes more time but that's worth it for us. Mostly was referring to protein specific (dried beans vs. eggs / chicken etc.), and in that case assuming you want to minimize other environmental impacts (buying dried beans, avoiding tofu b/c it always comes in plastic etc.).

  2. i would caution against jumping to extreme examples for the shock factor and re-emphasize that i used the word accessible. My whole point here is not to argue that veganism is not the correct moral path in my judgement (as i've expressed numerous times on this site in similar arguments, i'm vegan and have been for 8+ years and not that it matters but have "converted" many people just through teaching and sharing my knowledge of vegan cooking). For me this whole list just comes down to the fact that we shouldn't ignore the reality that the ease of dietary decisions is the same for every individual and it's not just the straw man of "food desert". Specifically the argument that is the origin of this post is - why do folks who believe themselves anarchic in some regards not engage in the anarchic act of veganism. All i'm saying is that the answer to this lies in the fact that accessibility to veganism isn't as clean and easy as folks in this thread are arguing and if we actually care about engaging with the root goal of all of us - having more vegan diets in the world - we need to stop yelling at redditors and labeling them weak and ideologically inconsistent, and start thinking about the actual barriers that exist.

Also for all y'all downvoting me - go find your local Food Not Bombs group and dedicate some time to actually providing accessible vegan food to your community. I'm out there every week helping to provide that shit to my community but when the other mutual aid group that happens to cook meat comes around asking if we can support their cooking efforts too you know i'm right there with them as well.

6

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

fosho, I'm in agreement with your analysis, but i think what i was primarily trying to express is just exhaustion with this kind of reddit-reactionary bullshit coming up on raddle.

i think this discussion and the fact that it's at the top of my feed is just sooooooo fucking lame and i can't help myself from responding sometimes

like a post essentially saying "if you're not vegan you can't really be committed to a movement toward liberation" is like the most exhaustingly pedantic, western-centric approach to anarchy i could possibly imagine and seems to exist near-solely in the internet sphere.

edit: this was a reactionary comment and maybe just too whiney. would delete but like i said it that's there whatever.

−1

halfway_prince wrote

i think fixating on any single act as the easiest or most basic act of anarchy can allow you to gatekeep anarchy infinitely.

For example, i could pose a similar question to you - "can someone clarify something for me? So what's the deal with young white anarchists buying land that rightfully should be rematriated to the original indigenous stewards but also thinking they'll eventually be part of a movement to abolish private property etc. Shouldn't they just squat?"

You might argue - well sure in an ideal world i wouldn't have to own land to function in this society and would rather just live in squats, but i've made the personal calculation that it's necessary for me to make some ideological compromises, but on the whole i live a life pretty consistent with my ideals.

I think most folks are just constantly doing the best they can and constantly making the calculations and doing what makes the most sense to themselves.

There's no single thing that makes you an anarchist, and honestly it seems a pretty worthless endeavor trying to figure out every little thing you can nitpick to label people definitively NOT anarchist.

a couple other things besides "food deserts" that make being vegan not the most accessible: 1) knowledge of how to convert to a healthy vegan diet. 2) family needs (partner, kids, parents). 3) time - being vegan just objectively requires more time cooking. 4) cultural background - meat is important to many cultures, celebrations, etc.

5

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

Damn i'm interested that your takeaway (referring to all your comments in this thread) being so different from mine.

my personal reflections are more broadly along the lines of humans constantly balancing an equilibrium of freedom/equality with hierarchy/inequality and self regulating. Kind of like the inverse of entropy, humanity is constantly tending toward domination/power structures of some kind, but we were able to effectively self-regulate for a long long long time and not have comprehensive omnipresent hierarchy be the norm until recently, and more importantly - those power structures were not necessary for society to grow and evolve and develop.

i guess i just don't see where that is inconsistent with anarchy in general. obviously it may be antithetical to certain western anarchists theories of human sociology, not every theory of anarchy ever anarchy more broadly.

5

halfway_prince wrote

lol was just referring to the specific and unique brand of anarchism that u/lettuceleafer is formulating/bringing into existence. From what i can glean from their posts it's kinda unique and interesting and very different from what I'm familiar with. Was mostly using it as a joke though just to highlight that they have often expressed explicit support for squatting in most contexts.

2

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

honestly i'm not really sure but i would be very interested to see what you do with the place esp on a low budget. I have some relatives who did a fix-up of a shit house and they managed to make it pretty livable.

edit: pictures may be better than video?

3

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

this was so clearly a joke, in the same vein that you would typically make. when did shit get so serious god damn - also wouldn't anarcho-lettuceism ideology fully condone squatting anywhere ??

7

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

I'll be real, lots of people on this site have gotta stop assuming the worst in people and engaging in posts like this as a fight. This was asked in good faith and devolved into a lot of people internet screaming at OP.

I think this question and subsequent discussion follows the same pattern as my last post about gentrification and when it's useful to apply that word. I don't want to talk about the specifics of this question cuz that seems to have been beaten to death already, but i do want to share my thoughts on what i'm thinking is a shared frustration between many leftist white men.

My takeaway from that discussion and this one is that you and i both get frustrated by this feeling of "original sin" linked to our identity as white men in the current leftist culture. We likely live similar lives doing the best we can to unlearn and undo harm to marginalized communities and sacrificing a lot and using our privilege to do so. To some extent we feel like this should be enough to earn our redemption and probably have a lingering hope that at some point some time we'll be recognized and valued as something more than our identity as white men.

But the unfortunate reality is that simply in many leftist circles identity and not actions or behaviors is the basis for inclusion. It's almost entirely reactionary to the more widespread culture favoring white men exclusively. I mean how many times have we seen spaces that say "Queer, femme, BIPOC, trans, etc. etc. etc. focused" that seem catered to literally everyone but white men? While this is extremely isolating and hurtful to those of us who are white men but feel like we too have been damaged by the patriarchy and do our best to fight race/gender supremacy, it's just a fact that there's a huge benefit to having those identity based spaces because the vast majority of white men do just fucking suck, and we shouldn't be entitled to every space. Our very existence is triggering to many folks. So yes, absolutely we're going to keep carrying the sins of our fathers for as long as the overwhelming majority of people with our skin tone and gender are perpetuating harm. I recommend just coming to terms with the fact that we will never free ourselves from these terms: gentrifier, settler, racist, etc.

But here's the redeeming part.....they're just......words? Like honestly, they are... Being any of those things really doesn't fucking change anything about you. It's a spook that you have to free yourself from and realize that there's room to carry an identity and fight it at the same time. For example you can be a settler, but doing anti-colonial work. You can be a gentrifier, but fight gentrification at the same time.

And while there are many folks who will discredit you based on your unchangeable identity, there are also lots of folks who judge you based on your actions and behaviors and look past identity. And at the end of the day, the latter group are the people who are actually way more worth spending time with. I think it's actually kind of a nice selection process, because when your identity means folks assume the worst you can know that those who stick around recognize your actions and value you for that.

I could take a queer identity to get easier access to spaces, but at the end of the day do i want friends who take me in simply because i mostly date nonbinary folks?? like what basis for allies is that??

Idk this is a ramble of a lot of thoughts that have building up over time, but i hope it's helpful for others to think about.

7

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

Yaaaa i don't feel like it's necessary to pile on here but just to explicitly reject this statement beyond what u/metocin already said about it being cooperatively run

The common example of food not bombs is precisely an exercise of gaining wealth to aquire power

FNB has a lot of issues (as do most institutionalized mutual aid groups) but this statement seems to only be able to come from someone who's never worked with mutual aid groups before.

At least in my branch of FNB (not sure if this can be applied everywhere), everything we get is donation based with the exception of some staples (brown rice, etc.) and rent for the building we're in, and some operating costs (car reapirs, gas, etc.). Clam shell containers, vegetables, EVERYTHING else is donation based because it's genuinely founded on the principle that power isn't accumulated wealth. It's having community networks of resource sharing etc.

When we do have money (like right now) we typically try to burn through whatever isn't absolutely essential and spread it out to other mutual aid groups because we know at the end of the day money (to us) means nothing unless it's being used to help folks. Also those decisions are actually consensus driven not a democratic vote.

There's also some interesting history around organizing about how governments use influxes of money / resources to destabilize groups. Like a lot of folks in organizing are actually super wary of getting big donations and acquiring large amounts of money.

I would recommend you should try and find a mutual aid group where you can engage with anarchy in a non-internet-centered way. It's kinda sad to see you go down the anarcho capitalist route (which you 100% are) especially when you used to be someone on this site that i respected and was interested to hear from.

6