loukanikos

loukanikos wrote

Protecting my family and community against fascism and white supremacy. Also hunting for food if you have access to a healthy ecosystem that you can participate in. In some parts of the world the apex predators have been forcibly removed by humans but there are still abundant prey animals which can constitute a sustainable meat alternative to farm raised animals. That said I think guns are not really necessary for hunters but firearm hunting seems like a good entrypoint for most people.

6

loukanikos wrote

No, not really. For me its a situation where I can't conceptualize a vegan agricultural system that would be sustainable. Maybe in a future where better technology exists, I could be convinced. For instance: if low-input synthetic fertilizers were developed or if botanical and agricultural research made perennial staple crops a real possibility, that would be a gamechanger. In that world, I could see how a worldwide vegan food system would be sustainable. But in the near term, the idea feels too utopian to me. So it feels like veganism (or similar practices) will remain practical only for people in richer, more privileged societies with higher overall energy usages or for the upper classes in poorer societies (see: "true veg" aka lacto-vegetarian or Brahmin diets in India). I have no doubt humans will get there, if our species survive the Anthropocene, but it doesn't feel achievable in my lifetime. I'm happy to talk about what I see as the ideal interim solution, but that almost seems off-topic here.

Instead I actually want to say that admire your dedication to this idea though, and even though I think worldwide veganism is a non-starter presently, I believe convincing those in developed countries with meat-centric food culture to adopt vegan diets is still a net positive. I'm going to make a suggestion of perhaps one conceptual exploration that I think may bear fruit for you in improving your conversion rate in these kind of debates:

I think the concept of carnism altogether may be harmful to your ability to convince people to convert. That's because it seems overly binary. The idea that we would group people who eat as much as 50% of their diet (or even more sometimes) in animal protein alongside people for whom it is only 5-15% of their diet doesn't leave much room for a reasonable debate in my mind. Such a discussion already has a powerful "us vs. them" connotation that may actually cause your opponent to entrench themselves and become harder to convince. It may be useful to retain the term in its binary sense for ethical discussions in a vegan context, but when debating with carnists, I think you will find more success if you instead conceptualize the issue as a sliding scale (let's say: carnivore, omnivore, vegetarian, vegan, etc or something else entirely -- I dunno).

The main difference in this approach is that I believe you should accept the other party's incrementalism as a win. In my opinion, framing the issue as such could not only be more persuasive but may also be less mentally exhausting for you, allowing you to keep up your stance more persistently over long periods of time without feeling frustrated. Basically: I feel you should think of it as a long war with several battles and not a single debate to be won, and you will have more overall success.

4

loukanikos wrote

I feel like deep ecology, along with a lot of other currents in green politics and environmentalism has dangerous elements and strong overlap with ecofascist tendencies. However, that could be said of a lot of things that green anarchists are interested in. Like if some ecofascists were radical vegans (and I think savitri devi was actually) that shouldn't preclude an interest in veganism. Its tempting to make a sort of reductio ad hitlerum by referencing the nazi underground and stuff but I think like with a lot of things we should kind of take what we like instead of just trying to refute the whole/ philosophy. And that is kind of what has been done if you consider that a lot of deep ecology ideas live on in the concept of degrowth, rewilding, and so forth.

One acknowledgement, though: my feelings would likely be different if I felt that statists or some prominent political party had successfully and holistically coopted deep ecology in a dangerous way but really I don't think they ever managed that. At best you see liberals or ecofash or whatever making references to some ideas/concepts but as far as I know its not like a hierarchical entity ever arose to evangelize deep ecology.

1

loukanikos wrote

Reply to by !deleted32548

I read the guardian, al jazeera, new york times, bloomberg, wall street journal. Yeah most of these outlets are incredibly biased one way or another but its good to know what the establishment is on about.

4

loukanikos wrote

It's not the first time the military industrial complex did this either. A few years ago when I was in uni, I injured myself and was on crutches. I was living off campus and previously my means of transport was a bike. I was super behind in classes after and wanted to graduate in time so even though it was expensive I just started taking yellow cab to class every morning (this is before UberX). My cab driver 80% of time was this old afghan guy who after a while became really friendly with me. I think he basically knew I would be calling for rides and would hang out in the area.

After maybe six weeks of this we would talk about a lot of stuff, incl. my family, his family, etc. He told me he'd been living in the US since the Taliban first came to power, and that before 9/11, for over a decade he had a job doing translations for the government. But when 9/11 happened they audited all the Afghans' security clearances and many people lost them. Including my friend. So since then he'd been driving yellow cab. Anyways just sharing this story to confirm a long trend of American imperialists being assholes to people that helped them.

5

loukanikos wrote

I don't disagree with your analysis but morally speaking I am extending them some sympathy because seems like coming up in Afghanistan would be pretty shit. You are basically between a rock and a hard place. The powers that be are basically: corrupt/inept government, radical religious right, imperialists. If you look at photos from the conflicts, you see Afghans on all sides fighting in leather dress shoes and sandals. I know a few Afghans who managed to emigrate to like India but I can't fault anybody for deciding to help the storm troopers. At least they might give you a pair of boots.

3

loukanikos wrote

Just for what it's worth, I work as a developer and I have no formal degree. I did a bootcamp a few years ago but honestly it was kind of a scam and most of what they taught me I was learning online already. I just didn't have confidence to apply to the gigs. The only thing the bootcamp really helped with was database design I think. Maybe you don't need to go back to school? There's a lot of resources around.

6

loukanikos wrote

I think this narrative really needs to be pushed further mainstream. I hear a lot of well meaning people talking about "wilderness" and other concepts, especially in regards to N. America, that I think are harmful for ecological development of human dominated ecosystems. Currently I am obsessed with the damage unmitigated growth in Deer population is causing, but I think there are probably lots of other ecological issues that most folks dont realized were historically managed by humans.

4

loukanikos wrote

I'm legitimately trying to be helpful here. Not sure anything can really be done. There is a certain type of person who is on reddit and they influence all the various subreddits (no matter how diverse those may seem). It's the same on raddle and will be the same on every site. The best thing we can do is keep barriers low and try to promote intercommunity exchange.

6

loukanikos wrote

I really hope we can make it culturally acceptable. Not only does it seem like there is still risk of spreading, even between inoculated and asympotmatic people but also just feels like a good call, especially in really dense places like on public transit and stuff.

6

loukanikos wrote

Reply to by !deleted30689

Not today but yesterday a neighbor had put out free little mini boquets in reused glass containers for passerbys to take. My partner got a nice snowbell and bleeding heart combo that was in an old maple syrup jar. Anarchy in the neighborhood 💚

3

loukanikos wrote

Pretty sure there was a coverup here. Cops in Chicago often keep "drop weapons" to leave at crime scenes if they discharge their weapon without a good reason. Apparently there was a suspicious 48 hour window where the cops didn't inform next of kin: plenty of time to solidify a common story and put together a plan for how to spin this.

4