halfway_prince

halfway_prince wrote

Reply to Chokers by Yatothagod

Do whatever you want sweaty! Genderbending is still radical in my mind.

Also I think anyone who wears a choker is hotttt

5

halfway_prince wrote

Reply to shocked by black_fox

i've felt this way since the 2020 summer protests...it's like this numbness set in that nothing can really penetrate. kinda weird

2

halfway_prince wrote

This example I think illustrates the potential issue with the woke-policing of language especially when it comes to indigenous people. /u/ulettuceLeafer is using language-policing to critique a meme that is facilitating dialogue on how some indigenous agriculture practices are being appropriated and erased by western environmentalists.

I think the actual impact of this (intention aside) is to divert the conversation's focus and make it more difficult to engage with critiques of cultural appropriation and erasure.

4

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

I find that this critique doesn't resonate with me since I can't find much evidence (or direct critiques from indigenous folks) that brings up the issue of anarchist usage of the term indigenous of as a major factor in erasing individual indigenous community identities.

I totally agree that the hypothetical scenario where if any time that indigenous anything comes up it's discussed only in broad sweeping terms that can lead to erasure and homogenization. However, in my experience, when the word "indigenous" is employed broadly, it's used to refer to shared experiences dealing with state oppression, racism, etc. which are inherently general experiences disconnected from the nuances of unique individual communities.

I guess I agree with what you're saying - that when referring to more niche behaviors or characteristics of specific communities use the specific name to identify them. But, honestly when you put language in your post like

my racism detector goes off

my woke-police radar goes off as well lol. I believe your underlying motivation here is well-intentioned and potentially on to something, I just question whether this is actual a problem that results in harm or just another iteration of the language that leftists develop to out-woke one another.

Anyway, I would like to acknowledge that what I'm putting out here follows the pattern of dissenting argument that comes up whenever anyone critiques language as problematic. As well, it's based on my personal experience and research that has failed to show any indication that this is an actual issue. I'm totally open to that being flawed or countered with other people's experiences.

tl;dr - is this really a problem? Idk...but i'm not convinced

3

halfway_prince wrote

so stoked to see this analysis - i've been watching this the last few nights and it's amazing! My partner described it as a mix of parasite, battle royale, and the platform.

Also coincidentally started watching Alice in Borderland at the same time which has a similar premise(ish) but less social critique and more goofy stuff.

3

halfway_prince OP wrote

a take from reddit that provides a little clarity:

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a victory for the protestors but more a defeat for the RCMP.

Reading the decision, the judge based their decision primarily on RCMP enforcement tactics and their overreach of the legal authority previously provided. It is not like they are siding with the protestors' actions they just couldn't trust the RCMP enough to attach the court's reputation.

The judge is essentially punting this back to the Province. Without extended powers in the injunction they will be forced to use other tools in their toolbox such as criminal charges or legislation if they desire. The judge even noted in their decision that the escalation of protestor actions leads them to expect criminal charges will be pursued.

3

halfway_prince wrote

Reply to the scene by black_fox

don't understand this daemonization of drug users...do people really think alcohol is such a different thing than other drugs? how did folks get so propagandized ??

5

halfway_prince wrote

Reply to comment by Exlurker in I'm unbanning celebratedrecluse by ziq

An attempt at doxxing someone who considers you a friend is a huge violation of trust especially for someone who is as security conscious as Ziq. Even if it can be written off practically as a misdirection, the reminder that you can be betrayed and threatened by people who have put trust in is a huge emotional and psychological burden.

Security culture (while essential for some folks) is inherently isolating and non-conducive to community bonds, so I agree that we should actively discourage folks from engaging in practices that make it even harder.

12

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

At least where I live there are small groups that organize and build small homes for established encampments. They're moderately expensive to build but are solid structures. All funds are through fundraising events or mutual aid donations (no big charities).

I've helped build some and the process is interesting. But more important is the way that they interact with the community to decide who gets to use it (always free).

It's definitely illegal to build these structures, and some have been destroyed by sweeps (i think?) but where i come from the housing crises is bad enough that most of the time the local government is fine looking the other way for most unhoused support work even if it's illegal.

I really like your enthusiasm to address this issue (that's only going to keep getting worse), but I definitely feel like from these proposed ideas you're locked in a thought process of tearing down one power structure just to build another power structure in it's place. Slumlording is inherently problematic whether you put the word anarchy next to it or not. The idea of having some kind of purchased insurance policy is just another way to centralize power and remove decision making abilities from individuals. Maybe the language you used was just a red herring, but it seems like the institutionalization of something (mutual aid, guaranteed housing) that doesn't need to be institutionalized.

[not based] :(

6

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

I haven't seen this comparison drawn before but I think it's really good to see articulated.

The only distinction i would see is that the military service is contained to a short period of time while policing is a life long career. I guess it's easier for me to see individuals making the decision to say "alright if i just sacrifice the next four years so that I can have healthcare, education, some financial stability for rest of my life" rather than "i'm going to commit my entire life to this career and be stuck doing evil shit forever but i guess i gotta eat somehow".

4

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

lol okay i agree with that ideology forsure, but there's still some need to distinguish allies vs. opposition to a certain extent at the very least as a way of where to focus efforts and direct action.

We all love direct action right? Well ya gotta distinguish which targets are worth attacking or defending from a DA standpoint. Isn't that fair?

The logic of this statement

I view all statist tax paying businesses very negatively.

is functionally "something that's part of a system can be equated to all other parts of that same system". following this logic, i think it would be pretty fair to say everyone (with minor exceptions) on this site are icky icky capitalists and deserve equal shame as Jeff Bezos...likely including you ¯\(ツ)

4

halfway_prince wrote

I was just provoking the troll there.

lol ok that makes more sense

Setting this as the entry point is troublesome as many of the world population struggle to reach survival levels.

this i'm interested in. (the following is a take that i'm trying out, please argue with it if you think it's flawed) I feel like the rise in unhoused folks around the U.S. specifically has shown demonstrated that many folks in "developed"/"wealthy" countries are far more vulnerable to small perturbations in financial stability than we typically assume when comparing to a country that has highly visible poverty consistently. I'm definitely not trying to say the material conditions are near equivalent, but the mindset and social consciousness of the average person in the U.S. (for example) is far closer to the brink of extreme poverty rather than long-term stability. I think this mindset can be so entrenched that even when some folks are able to escape and reach a genuine stable position, they're not able to really escape that bottom couples of rungs on Maslow's hierarchy. This scarcity mindset shapes and influences their selfish wealth-accumulation tendencies in a way that is dissonant with their needs.

4

halfway_prince wrote

Ya the petite bourgeoisie should get molotovs, i think the more interesting question here is who is the petite bourgeoisie in a society where we all have to food on the table, and having your own business can be done in a somewhat ethical way (worker co-ops, family businesses, etc.)? At what point do we start generalizing anyone who "employs" folks as the enemy?

4

halfway_prince wrote

I think the usefulness of labels is quite limited. I judge small businesses (which i think is what you're referring to here, or at least the language used in my area) by their actions rather than the label. A small business can be bad or good, it shouldn't be judged as either just by nature of being "small" or being a "business".

For example, if a small business chooses to lay off it's workers to bust the formation of a union, then fuck'em and they should burn like the rest.

But if it's a small business that employs marginalized people (trans folks, ex-felons, drug users, etc.) in a non-exploitative way and provides health care, benefits, and support in a way that you could never see a large corporation doing, then ya i think that's a different situation and would try to actively contribute to their financial success.

5