Comments

4

kore wrote (edited )

an interesting little fact is that the etymology of the word "humane" comes the latin word "humanus" which means "of a human being." This word is in turn related to "humus", the Latin word for earth. So at its most basic level, to be humane is to be an earthly being. I like to include all living things in this definition. It also has the association "kind, gentle, polite" from very early on, as if these qualities are fitting for a human. Okay, comparative-historical linguistics aside over.

3

kore wrote (edited )

This is a classic topic in ancient Greek political theory. In addition to warnings throughout poetry (plays, elegies, epic) of the dangers of letting a demagogue sway the minds of the people, Aristotle (and later Polybius) have discussions about the two natures of democracy. The first so-called "democracy" or "people-rule", is where educated people make informed decisions (a so-called "ideal citizen"). The second, so-called "ochlocracy" or "mob-rule" is more like what you are describing, a dictatorship of the brainwashed masses.

EDIT: this isn't to say that their democracy is particularly anarchic. It was heavily influenced by patriarchy and religious tradition among other things.

2

kore wrote

Nietzsche is worth reading IMO. I'd second beyond good and evil. Some of his lesser known works like the (unpublished) "We philologists" and "Ecce Homo" are pretty interesting too. Understanding what he means by "ubermensch" is critical to understanding what the fuck he may or may not be talking about, and most people get that wrong (hint: it's not synonymous with "alpha"). There are all sorts of things that Nietzsche wasn't so great about, such as a nearly complete neglect of women in his works. He also says some stuff about Jewish people that might seem a bit iffy nowadays but a lot of that was his sister misrepresenting his works. By the end of his life he was writing things like "all anti-Semites should be shot" anyway I'm rambling sorry but Nietzsche is really good!

1

kore wrote

I agree that hunting is not more sustainable in every case. If you live in a city it is much more sustainable to have a plant-based diet.

If you lived North of the Arctic circle (or a similarly cold place) it would be impossible to survive on local vegetables. If you lived in the desert it would also probably be impossible. In this case, which is more favorable? Importing food across hundreds (sometimes thousands) of miles or hunting?

Who specifically are the monks that you speak of? Is there any environmental history I can read concerning their dietary and agricultural practices?

1

kore wrote

neutral milk hotel - In the aeroplane over the sea john fahey - fare forward voyagers/soldier's choice (and pretty much any john fahey album) robbie basho - visions of the country

I generally like whole albums as a principle. When I'm just jamming out to something I'll put on a song but if I actually want to focus on the music/have the time (like when I'm on a train) I'll listen to a whole album.

melvins fuckin rips, i love those guys

2

kore wrote

I say fuck reading fast. Here is a favorite quote of mine from Nietzsche's Morgenröte

At present it is not only my habit, but even my taste—a perverted taste, maybe—to write nothing but what will drive to despair every one who is “in a hurry.” For philology is that venerable art which exacts from its followers one thing above all—to step to one side, to leave themselves spare moments, to grow silent, to become slow—the leisurely art of the goldsmith applied to language: an art which must carry out slow, fine work, and attains nothing if not lento. For this very reason philology is now more desirable than ever before; for this very reason it is the highest attraction and incitement in an age of “work”: that is to say, of haste, of unseemly and immoderate hurry-skurry, which is intent upon “getting things done” at once, even every book, whether old or new. Philology itself, perhaps, will not “get things done” so hurriedly: it teaches how to read well: i.e. slowly, profoundly, attentively, prudently, with inner thoughts, with the mental doors ajar, with delicate fingers and eyes ... my patient friends, this book appeals only to perfect readers and philologists: learn to read me well!

1

kore wrote (edited )

you're an 'authoritarian fascist' for caring that we took your land from you."

Yeah and that sort of gotcha doesn't acknowledge the fact that it's not simply "we took your land." For example, Alexander the Great "took" land when he conquered people but in many situations he largely allowed local forms of government and local customs to stay in place. Not saying there can be good conquering, just saying that "taking" land is only a very tiny part of the problem.

2

kore wrote

I like to think that a lot of our general/abstract goals coincide. Things like eliminating oppression and promoting mutual aid. How that manifests itself into our practice is very different for different people. We're also an international community, and the issues faced in different countries, while perhaps similar, don't quite coincide.

6

kore wrote

This type of thinking, where land belongs to the very first group of people to live on it

I've been thinking about this so goddamned much, it's as if decolonial theory has amnesia before the 15th century. Settler colonialism is very narrowly defined (and I think rightly so), so it's not productive to call anything other than European imperialist colonialism "settler colonialism," but the basic concepts behind it deserve a far more general theory and a much broader historical examination.

I think part of the reason that European settler colonialism is the focus is because it's the source way more oppression to people living today than anything remotely similar, past or present. The Israeli-Palestine situation arguably stems, at least in part, from European settler-colonialist attitudes.

The best course of action now is to work to overthrow the american capitalists, who are the real reason for colonialism, from power.

Yeah to me it seems that working on things like immigrant rights would do more to get rid of the white majority.

4

kore wrote

To me it seems like it would improve racial divisions locally but exacerbate them globally. I have yet to see anyone seriously consider what happens after white people are gone. It seems similar to the line of thinking of some anarchists that "once we abolish hierarchy we'll have a utopia!", as if struggle could ever be completed

3

kore wrote

I especially enjoyed the part at the end that considered what happens if (hopefully when) people work less because of automation but still have an industrial capitalist conception of time. People will probably still feel anxiety about idleness even if they don't need to do anything. The psychological implications of technology are fascinating.