kore

1

kore wrote

"Ethics" means nothing to the bonobo female biting off a male's toes.

I do not think there is such a thing as a more advanced lifeform. I obviously am a very different lifeform than an amoeba, but they are just as evolved as me.

My point about scientific racism was precisely that it's based off of the untrue assumption that there can be more or less evolution (aside from the fact that there are no human "races" as the term is defined by modern biologists)

If humans are still doing these things to each other there's no reason to use the word primitive, that's my point.

4

kore wrote (edited )

bonobos on the other hand are much more egalitarian and "free love" kind of animals

generally don't agree with applying terms like "ethics' to non-human behavior though.

EDIT: also i don't think that one should use terms like "enough" or "advanced" when talking about evolution. there is no more or less. it's extremely easy to get into scientific racism with that sort of mentality

EDIT 2: i also think you are overgeneralizing (and arguably being a bit racist) by associating war and rape with so-called "primitive" societies.

2

kore wrote

Kanzi the bonobo is probably what you're looking for: http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2001julykanzichimp.htm

There are tons of videos of him on youtube too.

bonobos/other apes don't have the hand anatomy to make anything more than the most basic stone tools. (thumbs are too short for powerful precision grip, wrists not that flexible)

As far as language goes, human vocal tracts are actually very specific morphologically and it's doubtful even our closest genetic relatives (neanderthals, homo erectus) had the proper larynx morphology to produce speech as varied as we do.

Symbolically, chimpanzees can use symbols (or gestures) to communicate but it is not conclusively proven that they have a capacity for syntax or grammar (i.e. "combinatorial" language)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vocalization#Bird_language goes into this for birds.

"work together" so many organisms do this, bees for one. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality for more.

5

kore wrote

Seeing a lot of parallels with Nietzsche here, specifically in discussion of free spirits and the following quote:

We are not the admirers of the “ideal man” of “social rights, but the proclaimers of the “actual individual”, enemy of social abstractions.

Nietzsche's Übermensch seems very similar to this: often misconstrued as an "ideal man", it's much more like the "actual individual" Novatore has here.

I also think it is very important not to take this part lightly:

All that is called “material property”, “private property”, “exterior property” needs to become what the sun, the light, the sky, the sea, the stars are for individuals.

And this will happen!

It will happen because we — the iconoclasts — will violate it!

Only ethical and spiritual wealth is invulnerable.

This is the true property of individuals. The rest no!

This is an amazing statement of what I see as the most often misunderstood part of individualism. Novatore is all about collectivizing material wealth.

And y'know, the whole thing is pretty inspiring. I'll have to read it again, there's so much to think about in statements like

We have killed “altruism” because we are generous egoists.

This line is also incredible:

The one is born who has learned the Dionysian art of joy and laughter through tears and sorrow.

3

kore wrote (edited )

I'd think that most anarchists would consider it from a power perspective: it is not often (ever?) the case that a child or even teen can assert themselves when in a romantic relationship with someone older. There's nothing "wrong" with it besides the fact that younger people are easy to manipulate (nothing on you personally, of course).

For a bit I was interested in Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson, who is a very popular anarchist writer and also a cowardly pedophile, so I've done some digging on this sort of thing.

John Henry Mackay was an anarchist and advocate for so-called "man-boy love." I have read a very small amount of his work.

You'll probably be interested in these links: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-p-helms-leaving-out-the-ugly-part-on-hakim-bey. A relevant quote: "Knowledge is power, and children know almost nothing."

https://www.nambla.org/

I can't say I feel comfortable offering advice to you other than this: I trust that you're careful, but remember to respect yourself and don't let anyone disrespect you. It's easier to let happen than you might think.

1

kore wrote

The chemical weapons convention does not specifically mention warfare in the section banning the production and use of chemical weapons. All production and use is prohibited. I've been doing some research and I think the distinction lies in that the chemical weapons convention only applies to states so local police departments are not subject to it. It is up to the country to legislate that.

1

kore wrote

I don't think the word "arseholes" covers the degree of systemic oppression that is perpetrated by white cis heteropatriarchy. It's true that in other parts of the world there are other forces that oppress, like islamophobia for example (put a different way it's religious supremacy).

I also really need to add to my general statement that before the category "white" existed, PoC as a category did not exist. White supremacy created that category. So in a sense, yes, there was no oppression of PoC before white supremacy. Similar line of reasoning applies to the other groups. Though they're more difficult to trace historically.

You're right that noone is genetically predisposed to be any worse than anyone else is. Genetic essentialism is very close to racial discrimination. Sure, if a dutch person was raised in a Black African family they may not be a "self-righteous prick", and to the people of the community they could just be considered another member. However, if they came to the U.S. or Europe or something they would be treated very differently than the family that raised them.

It's all about history. You can't consider these issues in a vacuum.