polpotisevil2

polpotisevil2 wrote

There is no better target than the foundation of modern infrastructure. Burning cell towers is lower on the chain but still very worthwhile. It would be preferred to burn entire power plants, corporate headquarters, factorys, etc. but those are monumental tasks compared to one cell tower. It's absolutely ridiculous to be concerned about the pollution of destroying a cell tower. They are going to build more whether you destroy them or not lmao. Not to mention the fact that they create more pollution by the day than you would ever create in your own life

3

polpotisevil2 wrote

Reply to by !deleted6627

The only tip I can give is don't go to Safeway if you are in the small area of NE that has them

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

If we did a poll of all the users here, you would see that the most ardent anti-communist, pro-imperialism anarchists are all middle class or higher, while those who work with communists are working class and true comrades.

Interesting... I wonder where all the money you say I have is. I'll bet a million dollars right now I'm lower class and more blue collar than you and likely most of the communists you know (in the USA). That's right, I'm willing to go into an extra $999,615 of debt because I am extremely sure of winning this. Do the math and you figure out how much money is in my back account right now, and that's not counting the debt I'm in already.

The communists I am friends with are white collar workers, making salaries higher than mine with easier and less skilled jobs

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

I've found even enjoyable trips are uncomfortable the last couple-few hours simply because it lasts so long and the effects die down and just make your body feel weird. Bad trips really do suck (although I weirdly enjoy them). I've had four or five (memories kind of blur together) out of the seven times I've done it.

1

polpotisevil2 OP wrote

Reply to comment by onymous in Anarcho-Primitivism by polpotisevil2

Perhaps I should have said "anarchism" instead of anarchy from the get go, because I agree with what you said. I was simply off-put, apparently because of a failure of myself to communicate properly, by a statement that because a nightshade is living in "anarchy", "anarchy" cannot be a culture. Anarchism is human made. Anarchism is a human culture, that cannot be put onto animals/plants as if they are anarchists, it simply affects our attitude towards non human beings.

Farming is authority, a hierarchy, and in my opinion at least, anarchism is against it. Anarchism is a human culture though.

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

More like right wingers who own weapons vs federal agents who come knocking to take away their rifles, very possibly encouraging them to start forming miltias and attacking the feds. I don't see the U.S. military being too involved unless it spirals far out of control into an all out war, and if so the military would absolutely split

0

polpotisevil2 wrote

The people you think want to do it take lots and lots of money from a lobbying organization whose sole purpose is to make sure Americans can buy any gun they want.

Are you talking about the NRA? If so, I would like some serious sources because as far as I can tell that it not true at all. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?toprecipscycle=2020&id=D000000082&candscycle=2020

They talk big game about gun laws but no one is even talking about re-banning assault rifles

What are you talking about? Joe Biden's third bold face lettering on his website states he plans to "ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons" and states his intent to tax people $200 (I don't even have that much money in my bank account) for each "assault weapon" they own, require registration with the federal government, and introduce obscene legislative hurdles to transfer ownership of your weapon to someone else. https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

And his VP pick supports mandatory buyback programs, a.k.a. confiscation. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/of-course-kamala-harris-supports-gun-confiscation/

That was in 1975. The NRA has gotten much more powerful since then. It won't happen.

The law was PASSED in 1975, and was in existence until its unconstitutionality was declared through the supreme court, and the legal challenges originally started around 2002.

It's only assault rifles. You can still have every other gun there. When you said "gun ban" in your original post, the implication was you were worried about all guns being banned. Not just the ones used for mass murder and shooting kids in schools.

I didn't realize this comment thread was going to turn into state apologia, supposedly coming from an anarchist. The implication, considering I am talking about the U.S.A. and the discussion of politics happening there, was an assault weapons ban. The guns you say are used for mass murder and shooting kids also happen to be similar to the ones the U.S. military uses to subjugate the entire country including me. Forgive me for wanting some leveling out of the odds here. Oh, and don't forget the millions of people who use them for hunting and home defense and the fact that the reason school shootings and mass murder happen are not simply because a gun exists.

If you'd like me to go on I could talk about the insane amount of other gun control laws being proposed and blindly supported en masse, and how extreme bureaucratic measures effectively eliminate gun ownership for poor people and relegate it to a privilege for the rich. I love that you ignored the Puerto Rico mention. Should I also link to price hikes for licenses to own weapons in New Jersey? What about the age restriction laws eliminating the ability for adults to protect themselves with a gun for three years? Hmmmm

0

polpotisevil2 wrote

I mentioned it because people usually think of red vs blue states and that isn't how a "civil war" would split in the US. Our previous civil war did because we were divided by states who allowed slavery and states that didn't. When asking about a civil war and the alt-right, I thought it prescient to discuss states because our previous civil war divided by states and because it won't now.

Gotcha, I agree

Man, you right-wingers sure like to believe democrats will come and take your guns, lol. They take a fuck-ton of NRA money. It's not gonna happen.

I'm right wing because I want to be able to own and use guns? I don't see how that makes me right wing.

Saying it's not gonna happen doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. The only thing preventing it from happening right now is the court system and that protection is shaky. The VP of the democrat nomination publicly supports mandatory gun buybacks. Go to Joe Biden's website and even the conservative democrat supports an overwhelming amount of debilitating and increasingly federal gun laws. D.C. virtually banned handgun possession before a court overturned it. Virginia is in the process of attempting to ban some rifles and passing other gun laws. California has many laws about firearm ownership, as I'm sure you know.

Puerto Rico was a great example of extreme bureaucratic loops for gun ownership that effectively outlawed it. Now, luckily it is being reversed there, but the democrats up north aren't trying to reverse those laws they are trying to implement them.

How so?

I think I meant that I don't think it's going to be just fighting in the streets. I was drunk so I don't know why I worded it like that

1

polpotisevil2 wrote

I think you are misrepresenting the left/right divide. First, what does it matter if it is followed by state lines? Second, Fighting in the streets is unlikely to be the only thing to happen in a scenario where the democratic party starts gun bans/buybacks/confiscations/etc. In that case there will be confrontation after confrontation with the feds and things will get far more heated than just a shooting during a protest. Local police in certain areas are known to refuse to enforce laws and sanctuary declarations (in regard to gun laws) from towns/counties in protest have happened in plenty of rural areas.

1

polpotisevil2 wrote (edited )

You do nothing? What does that mean? You don't have a job? How do you get food into you? Dumpster dive? Sleep on the streets?

Edit: Forgot that it is creator of GenZanarchist I am talking to. Nevermind. You live with your parents and probably plan to for five years after your eighteenth birthday and yet think you can talk about how we should work ourselves to death for your sacred communist religion of from each according to ability to each according to need.

4