lettuceLeafer

lettuceLeafer wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

Nah, u didn't bug me. Nothing for u to worry about. Thx for caring tho.

I try to avoid talking to you because last time I said the wrong thing you deleted your account and I felt bad about it for weeks

:(. I hope u don't worry about it bc I don't even remember what I was upset about.

Normally this internet stuff doesn't bug me. I think I'm more upset by it bc life is pretty shit atm.

Think I might take a break since I've been getting a bit ticked lately plus maybe less internet might help. I don't want u to feel bad bc I not upset with u.

7

lettuceLeafer wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

I didn't think I'd have people deconstructing A brief feeling I joked about. But Wierd but ok. By wealthly I was mostly referring to having enough money to not have to work and have some free savings to fund a project or help out a friend with rent to food or whatever. So like 2 people maybe having around a million dollars maybe a bit less than that. Which is a fuckin a lot of money compared to most poor people but like for America isn't exactly notable.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by metocin in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

The anarchist thing where people have extremely obscure definitions of words that u can't possibly find in a dictionary then whenever I or someone use the definition of a word as is typical said person does a call out as they have a defined a word in an obscure way that makes me a oppressive force. I dont get it.

Power is the ability to do stuff. extremely oppressed people are powerless as hierarchy removes their ability to do stuff or resist their oppression bc they lack power. I know this is not How u defined it bc if you said anarchism is about making everyone powerless you would sound ridiculous. No guns is anarchist, no autonomy is anarchist as that requires people to not be powerless

The common example of food not bombs is precisely an exercise of gaining wealth to aquire power. You figure out how to gain resources like food to such an abundance that u can't possible consume it all yourself. Which is wealth an abundance of valuable resources. Then distribute said wealth to help empower yourself and others. Which makes u more able to do stuff since u don't have to work to feed yourself which is gaining power. Plus the whole thing of mutual aid where they point is inherently to empower yourself further by building connections.

Unless you use the definition of wealth and power you can only find trolling through long ass books on the anarchist library and not ones in basically all dictionaries. anarchism is all about wealth and power. Aquiring an abundance of useful resource to share and everyone being powerful enough to not be controlled by hierarchy.

Not having wealth and being powerless actually means you are unable to do anarchy. I mean someon can try and run a food not bomb without any food because you just had enough for yourself to eat. Or being a slave so you have no power to do things in your life never less start a food not bombs. I don't know how it could possbly help people as the lack of wealth and power makes one unable to help themself. Not even including trying to help others.

−2

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

That's not a problem. It's the also lumping in women who are self employed pornographers i.e. caming ect. Who haven't hurt anyone and the comments are either s riding the woman's decision as a fool or infantilizing them or demonizing them as well rapist men. It stops b in feminism when you rapist men hurting women is used to tear other women down.

Plus it's homophobic too for using mysogynist is existing to do more fear mongering and moral panic about gay self expression thru pornography who almost certainly are raping women in their films.

It's actually quite easy to call out widespread practices in an industry without attack gay men and women who didn't do anything u don't like. It's just bullshit mysogyny women are mad so they tear down women lower in social hierarchy than them rather than making sure their comments actually attack the harmful men.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Thinking up porno scripts has been very enjoyable to me. Especially ones that I would make straight people mad.

Also I think I might have gone full Ancap. A upper middle class rich capitalist wanna be has been flirting with me and I'm like wow wouldn't it be so amazing to get married and revive the fuedal process of marriage to strengthen a families wealth and power. Talk about hot. FYI that's the only reason I gave him time of day.

Tho that is something that is weird about me. I have a conflict with my anarchist desires to date someone I really like but also my desires to maximize upward mobility to be a big time anarchist. I.e. marriage that I like less but is incredibly beneficial for putting myself in a stronger position to do anti state activities. They would go along with as a gates foundation kinda thing.

Also the concept of taking but from the mafia and having like a powerful anarchist family of sorts. Less about blood but more a bunch of queer people who r close. mutual aid being the key purpose rather than explicitly becoming as rich and powerful as possible.

−10

lettuceLeafer wrote

Eh, I think this like many things is just something that is going to cause harm inherently to exist. By itself gentrification isn't actually bad as it makes things more valuable which is good. It's more bad due to people being largely poor in society.

I think gentrification is just something that will happen like, garbage, pollution, funding government imperialism and paying for capitalist abuse of others ect. It doesn't make someone a bad person. It's just something that happens. Be cognizant of the harm but like that's life you know.

I think inherently as gentrification is mostly bad due to people being poor and having to pay for essential to live anarchist action that provides for basic needs is harm reduction for gentrification. Prob more effective than littering campground or shooting guns. Addressing why gentrification is harmful to a community rather than minimizing the damage is a method of solution I like better

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

Reply to comment by moonlune in New year's resolution by Kinshavo

Innocent people being hurt is a guarantee of violence. Anarchy are aren't special in this regard. If gangsters, people shooting in self defense and cops alike often end up accidentally killing civilians. Anarchists doing the same thing will have the same problem.

I was trying to avoid bringing it up because I couldn't think of a nice way to say it but you don't notice the obvious because what u require for proof is ridiculous. It's like u don't understand that violent criminals actually don't release proof of them commiting crimes publicly. and if they would get caught it's not like cops have a specific stats for recording the political beliefs of violent offenders.

Like the writer of pistols drawn or whatever isn't going to stream themself assassinating someone on Instagram while holding their ID to prove. You want the anarchists to be larping so you believe it. Because frankly your level of evidence required to prove something is incredibly unlikely of happening because anarchist criminals usually have pretty good security culture.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

It might be a bit liberal in reasoning but I think littering is actually preferable to taking it to a dump.

Using traditional garbage services is still horrible for the environment plus it means people don't really have to be conscious about how trash is hatful to our own lives.

By littering people myself included have to live with the consequences of our consumption. Sure it's bad just like garbage but one allows you to not acknowledge the harm you cause while littering makes you face the reality of your actions consistently.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by moonlune in New year's resolution by Kinshavo

I was referring to said violence killing civilians on accident which is quite typical with violence in densely populated urban areas or just with people around in general. So my point is if children or people just living their lives are are acceptable incidents to attack your enemy or whatever the logic of the police is quite similar.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Only slightly related to the meme I do wonder about all the ultra violence. Like I don't get it. For most people shooting like at all doesn't make sense to make your life more free. Like the world is pretty big but killing government officials will end your freedom pretty quick. Even in the age of the pirates they could only pull off that kinda behavior for like 20 years and even at that time it only worked for a short period.

So I feel like this ultra violence is more of a fetish than something that will help make you free. Not to mention how in plenty of times shooting is hard to do in the a spur of the moment and compensating for other people around. And if people ar willing to kill innocent civilians to fulfill their goal of violence for fun the line between cop and anarchist isn't very thick.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

I'd say if you move to a poor area and rent an apartment you are inherently gentrifying. A bug part of gentrifying is making property value go up. By moving to an area and buying stuff you inherently gentrify.

I don't think it's really possible to not gentrify if you move to an area to live a normie lifestyle of renting, and having a middle class job.

To not gentrify is to move to areas like suburbs or already rich areas or live a life that makes property value go down. Homeless, drug dealer ect.

7

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

I think it depends on what u are doing but requiring people to do a certain amount of covid procedure is the most self serving thing to do.

This situation is or is close to a zero sum game. You either have covid precautions or you don't. If you implement the covid precautions you loose people who don't want to do them. If you don't do covid precautions you will loose those who don't want to engage in such a thing. Also if an at risk person relies on the service they prob won't be happy that you are putting the in a situation where they have to risk their life to get help.

So I say self serving in this regard as it is more effective to keep the people who are willing to take precautions to harm disabled people less and getting rid o those who don't. So by not having covid precautions you will loose people who are more useful for mutual aid and anarchist activities than those u kept.

If say to try and keep the best of both worlds. Say you have to wear a mask and mostly social distance or whatever you plan is. Then add a different option for those who don't. You only meet with them outside or do dead drops for giving the stuff or whatever.

I guess I see it as you are at a crossroads where you either loose people with better disability politics or people with worse disability politics. Choosing to be people with better disability politics will be associating with people who are more likely to cause less problems in regard to ableism.

Also if I had boundaries with how much risk I was willing to put people with a mutual aid program and someone didn't like my boundaries so they have me an ultimatum to try and change my boundary I wouldn't consider changing it. Tho I don't think it sound like that is the case for you.

Edit: this isn't a zero sum game but I simplified the issue to one so it's way easier to get my point across

5