metocin wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in Why raddle? by ziq

Although there is no collection of the points, I think there is still somewhat of an incentive to post something that will be garner more points than others in the same post.

Debates are still going to be "won" by whoever received more points.

Not saying that it would be better without the useless internet points entirely, but there is still an incentive to "please the masses" vs old school forums that didn't have voting on posts.


metocin wrote

If I was no longer with my partner I would probably start squatting/nomad life. She's not as crusty as me and that's okay. We have talked together about living rurally vs urban and there's pros and cons. I think unless we meet others that we really vibe with and could live alternatively together with then we will most likely stay in our small city (or move to another city). If I do live in the city I would like to form a housing co-op and garden so that I can still have some detachment from the system.

I do dream about it all the time though lol.


metocin wrote

I really appreciate nudists/nudism. I had an experience a while ago where I showered with a bunch of my friends and being able to be with them in our natural states, free of judgement was very empowering and brought us closer together. Something clicked where I was like "damn, everyone needs to do this." Now I get why they used to make kids shower together in schools. That thought terrified me when I was a kid seeing that happen in movies but I think if I grew up being nude around others I would be more much self confident.


metocin wrote

Finish school, hopefully become a social worker. Then maybe go back to school again to become a counsellor. Idk. Just working my way towards some kind of stable career with a liveable wage that allows me to help people. Eventually have a family with my partner, she wants at least one bio kid, I want to foster or adopt at least one.

Practice writing and eventually get featured/published or just known as an anarchist writer.

Maybe help start a co-op or some kind of radical project.

Make art, learn to grow food, to play guitar.


metocin wrote

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

Except food not bombs are run co-operatively and there is no build-up of wealth or power there. It's simply relocating resources to people who need it.

You don't need wealth and power to do anarchy. That contradicts nearly all of the content I've read about anarchism, including that stuff that folks share here. Mutual aid is about working together to help those who need it, there is absolutely no requirement or need for anyone to be rich in order to do it.

Not to mention the way you seem to misunderstand wealth and power. You think that marrying rich and making a pile of money off of speculating won't corrupt your ethical and political positions? That's incredibly naive.

Power is not just "the ability to do stuff". Power is the ability you have over others. Once you seek out and obtain a superior ability you will no doubt use that ability over others for your own gain. Maybe for little things at first that you can easily justify. But very soon your "anarchist mansion" is just your mansion with big fence around it to protect it.

Anarchy is not about making everyone powerless, it's about everyone being equal. That means nobody having power over others.


metocin wrote

My dad happened to have one of Carlin's books and I read it when I was pretty young, like 11 or 12. His humour and way of thinking about the world had a huge influence on me growing up. No doubt it is one of the reasons I'm an anarchist now.


metocin wrote

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

strengthen a families wealth and power

maximize upward mobility

powerful anarchist

I can never tell how serious you are with these posts but taking this at face value, I'm not sure you actually understand what anarchism is. Doing mutual aid does not require wealth and power. Anarchism is opposed to wealth and power. If you wanna be a rich dickhead go do that but don't claim to be an anarchist if you do.


metocin wrote

I think it's fine if the store is truly radical, IE is a co-op, sustainable/ethical products etc. If it's privately owned and trying to appear radical/woke then it's just performative.


metocin wrote

I don't really need to be talked down to. You don't even know hold young or old I may be and it's condescending to assume I am younger and need advice from you about how to have a discussion on the internet.

You do not identify as vegan, yet came into a post in the vegan forum to give a pretty useless and ignorant definition of that term and how it is often used.

You aren't vegan, in a post about veganism?

If it's not about you, it's not for you.

There are ignorant vegans of all identities. There are plenty of ignorant white non-vegans. A white vegan is a white vegan. A non-intersectional vegan is someone who ignores concerns unrelated to veganism. There are POC vegans that are uncritical of capitalism and labour conditions in the third world. The definition you gave is not accurate or helpful because "white vegans", as I said, is simply a strawman that is built up by non-vegans to make it appear as if veganism has an intersectionality problem when it reality it's problems with intersectionality are no different than that of any other movement or group of people.

You said you are an ex vegan, have not confirmed whether or not you believe in the ethics of veganism and animal liberation, and you come into a post to perpetuate a negative stereotype about vegans. Does that sound like a post made in good faith? Because it certainly does not read as such.


metocin OP wrote

Okay I need to preface this by saying that I (think) my intentions are good and overall I agree with the need to end fatphobia, the stigmatization of fat people, and to recognize the systemic causes of health outcomes and body size instead of placing the blame on individuals. I hope that nothing I have already said contradicts this and I hope that our disagreement in another thread doesn't affect our conversation here.

If I didn't make it clear, I think my issue is that some of the rhetoric I see in conversations about fat liberation/fatphobia are incorrect or unhelpful and make the movement more prone to ridicule (although I understand this is not always a good reason not to say something).

Great but what is average?

I should have used quotations here. I understand the point you made and I agree it is wrong to try to generalize body size/weight.

It's common knowledge that being fat is dangerous? Common knowledge comes from who?

By extremely overweight I meant like hundreds of pounds. If you're going to argue that someone who is 4, 5, 600 pounds isn't at any health risk due to their weight/ body fat% then I'm not sure we can continue to have a productive conversation. If being in the low single digits of body fat% or being "extremely overweight" is dangerous to ones health (it is) then isn't it wrong to say that body weight/size/fat% isn't linked to one's physical health? I get that this link is largely overemphasized and that one can be considered overweight and still be perfectly healthy but I think it is incorrect and dangerous to flat out say there is no connection.

By saying that you don't agree that fatness is a non-issue

I should have been more clear here. I don't think it is an issue of moral judgement, I think it is a societal concern. I think there is reason to be concerned about raising obesity rates when it is clear that they are a result of systemic issues. It is clear that it is not a result of natural factors but of causes that are inherent in our society. We should be concerned about fixing these systemic issues that appear to be worsening the health outcomes and quality of life for people instead of bodyshaming and creating an unhelpful and unhealthy stigma on fat people. Our modern civilization allows us to be sedentary, to overeat processed, sugary, starchy, fatty foods and if you compare the diets and physical health of modern city dwelling humans and hunter gatherers it is clear that we are in a worse condition due to the life that our civilization imposes on us.

I want to say first and foremost that no one owes anyone health. I don't owe myself health

Well I can't really argue with you or convince you otherwise but I disagree. I think I owe it to myself to do what I can in order to improve my physical (and mental) health as much as possible. It isn't always easy to do and I realize that the people who appear to be in great health could drop dead at any moment. However I refuse to completely abandon any hope of remaining in good health and allow poor habits to shorten my life. Not to mention that the affect that a good diet and exercise has on one's mental health.

You just didn't hear it when you were scoffing at the idea that fast food is sometimes a thing that is the only thing that someone has access to.

I think that's it's possible to recognize that some people are unfortunately dependent on it while also criticizing the existence of the industry itself.

There is no such thing as a bad food or a good food.

This is just flat out wrong. This is what I mean. Fast food is bad food. It's over processed, fatty, sugary, starchy garbage that is only possible because of the exploitation and abuse of animals as well as low income humans. There is absolutely good and bad food. It is extremely unfortunate that our civilization forces some people into situations where they are dependent on bad food. This is not their fault and they shouldn't be shame for it. But that doesn't mean than bad food doesn't exist. It is hard to take someone (or a movement) seriously when there are flat out incorrect statements such as this.

People put so much emphasis on exercise as this like thing, but exercise is terrible. No one wants to do it. So don't. But you should still find ways to move that feel good and make you happy. You won't continue to do something you hate, so it's a better idea to start finding things you will enjoy and focus not on the size of your body but your ability.

You mention moralizing but it appears that you are moralizing the encouragement of exercise, even though you still said exercise is good. Moving is exercise. Moving and exercising are good and it's not wrong to encourage people to move their bodies (exercise). There is obviously a line there that gets crossed often when people are shamed about not exercising. But that doesn't mean you have to say "exercise bad".

This is what I am getting at. There is no reason why you have to deny that certain foods, certain diets, and not exercising are bad. People of all sizes and shapes should do what they can within their means in order to feel good about themselves. Just because we are saying "don't shame" doesn't mean we should altogether deny that good food exists and exercising is good for your body and mind. I think it really muddies the overall message.

Again, I hope this comes across the right way. I think I more clearly articulated what I wanted to say versus my OP being more of an angry rant. I realize that I probably still have some internalized fatphobia. But I hope you see that I am on your side and not attacking your conclusions or the overall message you are trying to convey. I get myself into a lot of these discussions (sometimes arguments) on raddle where I'm just being pedantic about a specific premise, claim or wording rather than arguing against the conclusions.


metocin OP wrote

I appreciate your thoughts and wish you good health (that sounds so old timey lmao)

And that is some of my motive for wanting to be more healthy. I daydream (it will probably never happen) about moving to nowhere and growing my own food and living off the grid. I think it would be a great way to live out some of my political ideals. As it is now I am not sure I could handle it. I may be short selling myself though too so who knows.

I have the same fantasies and I think they're a little unrealistic/idealistic but hey, we can dream. I think the main thing you should take away from your desires is that even if you may not reach an unattainable goal, you can find joy in making small efforts towards them anyways. Learning to grow food might not get me off grid, going for a run might not help my health in any measurable way, and shoplifting might not end capitalism, but these are all things I can enjoy just for the act itself. Hope that's something you might take pleasure in.


metocin wrote

I mean kinda but the most simple way to explain it is that it's a critique of traditional leftism, more specifically some problematic concepts that it is still latched onto (electoralism, industrialism, civilization, modern technology etc.).


metocin wrote

What I did was make an argument that some vegans call people Nazis for eating meat

My point is that says nothing about vegans because shitty behaviour exists in every group of people. Why even bring it up? The problem isn't veganism itself, it's ignorant bigoted people who happen to be vegan. As a vegan it's extremely annoying to see people bring these things up as if its relevant to veganism in general. It's just acting in bad faith.

By the way I should add that if you are unable to eat completely vegan but still avoid animal products as much as possible and believe in the ethics, you can still call yourself a vegan, rather than saying youre an exvegan and unable to be vegan.

Unsure why I shouldn't just block you at this point tbh

There are very few people to converse with on this site already, and if a mild argument like this is enough to upset you then I'm not sure how you would comfortably use any social media.

I honestly don't mean any harm against anyone on this website who is discussing in good faith. However I get annoyed very easily at anti-vegan rhetoric because it is often just bad faith bs. If you agree with the basic premises of veganism/animal liberation then I'm sorry for starting an unnecessary argument.


metocin wrote

I mean I could go find examples of anarchists being racist, sexist, bigoted in any kind of way but what the fuck does that prove? All it would prove is that I'm good at cherry picking examples for a strawman argument.

II don't entirely doubt that you have a legitimate reason but as someone who seen a lot of arguments online, there seems to be a lot of people with health reasons they can't explain. If you legitimately cannot eat vegan without dying or suffering than that is unfortunate.


metocin OP wrote

You make a good point about the doctors and our individualistic society. That's why I mentioned systemic issues causing obesity, because I believe that people shouldn't be shamed and have to bare the entire responsibility of fixing a problem that they didn't create in the first place.

Yeah it's very frustrating to hear "anarchists" argue against veganism. I used to be one of the people until I recognized the contradiction there.