turniphead

6

turniphead wrote

Fight Club. Literally burning down a building to wipe out debt.

9

turniphead wrote

Jeff Bezos

Elon Musk

Mark Zuckerbot

Charles Koch

David Koch

Donald Trump

George W Bush

Dick Cheney

Mike Pence

Alex Jones

2

turniphead wrote

I still don't understand how someone choosing to live in nature excludes people who choose not to. It's a personal choice and it doesn't affect anyone but the person making it.

4

turniphead wrote

How is someone choosing to live in the woods instead of in a condo ableist? Stop throwing that word around, it's starting to get on my nerves that you're misappropriating real oppression suffered by disabled people everyday to insult people that are just trying to survive with as low a footprint as they can make.

10

turniphead wrote

I'm not a 'primmie', I don't define my anarchy by such narrowminded definitions. But every anarchist worth their salt should be willing to critique the constructs that control us - including civilization.

9

turniphead wrote

Oppose. There's nothing ableist about critiquing our devotion to lifestyle technology and its affect on the consciousness, society or the environment. Technology can't save us from annihilation, only we can. Looking to eugenics-promoting technologies as the savior of humanity is foolhardy and dangerous.

Calling critics of technofetishism 'ableist' is doublespeak to shield the eugenics advocacy inherent with all forms of transhumanism.

2

turniphead wrote (edited )

Do we outlaw new clothing

Who said anything about 'outlawing' anything? This is about basing your political ideology and your whole identity on technology and its perpetual growth.

We're talking about an anarchist society, you aren't going to be out-competed in the marketplace, you'll be free to abstain if you'd like.

I'm not talking about an 'anarchist society' because I don't live in a world where an anarchist society exists or is anywhere close to existing. I don't like to base my politics in theoretical utopias.

But how exactly would I not be outcompeted if everyone else is a superhuman and I'm not? Markets have nothing to do with it. Even if I swallowed your perfect communist techno-utopia pill where everyone is free and equal and puppy dogs tails, the people that abstain are going to be outclassed in every other aspect of life. Communism or not. Starting from the gene pool and going to life expectancy, education, career, attracting mates, making friends, etc, etc.

Replacing capitalism won't change the fact that space and resources are finite, that not all technologies are created equal, and it won't change the fact that some people are just dicks that will persecute those who are ill equipped to compete for resources in a world where billions of superpeople live forever.

Do we ban reading & writing because it will lead to the literate dominating the illiterate?

By basing your entire identity on the accumulation and expansion of technology, you create a hierarchy far more domineering and destructive than your literate vs illiterate example. People that are unable to read are absolutely oppressed by a society that requires we read. It would be so much worse to create a world where abstainers are literally rendered an inferior lifeform.

Why should I accept your authority in limiting my growth

You sound like a capitalist right now. I didn't try to assert any authority over you. But in a world where your 'growth' comes at the expense of my freedom, at the expense of the environment us mere mortals require to sustain us, I wouldn't hesitate to fight back. And there is literally no way to produce the resources to equip 8 billion people and all their descendents with equal tech without destroying the environment. Communism isn't magic.

It's gray-jumpsuit communism and an attack on my freedom.

I'm not a communist, I'm an anarchist.

When your freedom infringes on my survival... Fuck your freedom.

3

turniphead wrote (edited )

I don't see why it would have to lead to hierarchy.

How would it not? Even if you could actually create a truly voluntary transhumanism (which you can't because everyone would be pressured to adopt it so as to not get left behind), the people that voluntarily abstain would become an obsolete species.

Unlike their peers, they wouldn't have genetic engineering to give them superhuman bodies at birth, they wouldn't have cybernetic implants to increase their cognitive abilities and physical strength, they wouldn't have immortality, and eventually they'd face discrimination and persecution like in every society founded on eugenics. They'd be freaks. Primitives. A remnant species.

Looking to technology to free humanity is like looking to Fox News to inform us. Technology isolates us far more than it unites us. Building your entire ideology around the idea of enhancing yourself through technology to somehow liberate society (by making yourself superior to those who opt out) is completely illogical. Eugenics and techno-supremacy isn't equality, however you try to sell it.

5

turniphead wrote

This is going to be a bloodbath...

I think I'm going to stay away for a couple of days until you've been hanged, drawn and quartered.

11

turniphead wrote

I'm more of a yacht person. I'll get a couple more yachts and tie them all together!