ziq wrote

sure, but try to explain that to the next group of people who fill the site with angry attacks for months because someone used a term like brown-noser... it sounds far-fetched but it's happened so many times, almost destroying the site each time. There's a long history on this site of language being used to create chaos.

anyway we've gotten super off topic at this point but I just wanted to go on the record that if emma renames the approved user function, that doesn't mean other color-related terms are banned on the site.


ziq wrote (edited )

there was someone who wanted the word 'blindspot' made against the rules for being ableist (they got their way). so then soon after, someone who had been involved in that proposal demanded we ban their enemy for calling them 'basic' because they deemed it to also be ableist. our refusal to ban them ignited a weeks-long drama fest and several rage quits

once a precedent is set, it has repercussions on the site for years.


ziq wrote (edited )

I don't care either way, but just want to say as a writer who already struggles to find the right words to make my points, preemptively removing innocuous terms from our language that have neither a racist history or contemporary racist usage would make it a lot harder for people to express themselves.

We'd have to stop using any terms that include colors: redfaced (ashamed), red with rage, blackballed, black humour, black magic, black eye, black sheep, yellow journalist, red line, yellow card, red card, brown-noser, brown thumb, black-and-white thinking, black out, black as night, etc.

The term blackball originated in 1550 when either a white ball or a black ball were put in a container during a vote to record yay or nay. Whitelist/blacklist then evolved from that. I don't think there was any racist intent when this happened.

Again, I don't care what word raddle uses for approved submitters, but I don't want to get reprimanded for saying "I was redfaced with shame" or whatever when I'm struggling to express myself.


ziq wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by capsaicin in On Tuesdays We Free Talk by tuesday

I never said that, they're misquoting. I said something like: you either have the capacity to abhor authority or you don't. Our life experiences and traumas shape us into anarchists. I think the exact quote was "either it's in your nature or it isn't" and people misinterpreted that and started claiming I said anarchy is in my blood and attacked me for it.

Edit: It was in here:



ziq OP wrote (edited )

Ziq has a lot to say about genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Let's hear what they have to say about ethnic Germans in the Ukraine, especially Mennonites, and how they were treated by anarchists.

Let's hear what they have to say about the genocidal actions against Catholics in Catalonia.

Let's hear what they have to say about the Spanish anarchists who supported the Spanish colonial holdings in Morocco and the genocidal actions that were necessary to suppress Moroccan uprisings that threatened the colonial domination?

What's that? They're all out of breath from denouncing what the tankies did in history that they didn't manage to get around to denouncing what anarchists did in history? Goodness gracious!

Wrong. I frequently call out e.g. the syndies actions during the Spanish civil war. For example:


I will not fight and die for an institution that builds prisons, holds slaves, kills nuns, etc.


Yeah and what happened to the CNT? They were all brutally killed. But not before they abused their authority to do some completely fucked up things.

The CNT was a failed experiment that we should learn from rather than yearning nostalgically for.

It didn't create anarchy in any way.

Anyone who tries to take your freedom from you should be met with extreme force until the very idea of exploiting others becomes culturally extinct.

We need to be completely ungovernable, not a neat organized militia all gathered together in one place so we can easily and quickly be crushed to death by a much more organized, well-equipped and hierarchical military force (see civil war Spain, Ukraine, every single other war in history). You don't win by playing their game by their rules.

Don't project your own shameless ideologuing onto me, dipshit.


ziq OP wrote (edited )

I really do feel sorry for this person. They're stuck in that edgy 14 year old "everyone hates me" mentality. Friendless, alone, pretending that they hate people because they're so lacking in social skills that they can't ever connect with anyone.

I imagine though, if I met them in real life I would be filled with less "pity" and more of the "violent rage" they describe (though I think they're just misidentifying contempt as rage there).

I know violent rage / attempts to kill me when I see it, thanks for your input tho.

If you rub everyone the wrong way the problem is you Ziq. If you stubbornly refuse to grow as a person or change any behaviour in any meaningful way for the happiness of those around you then you're the problem.

So I need to take the red fash pill for people to like me? Pass. Gonna keep speaking my mind regardless of how uncomfortable it makes people to hear. Will die friendless and alone, sure, but at least I'll know I never conformed to be accepted by you or anyone.

He wants to build a libertarian society that lets him be an asshole that rubs everyone the wrong way and PROMOTES that behaviour because he stubbornly won't accept that maybe he should stop being a fucking asshole to everyone he meets.

If talking about the atrocities of the USSR makes me an arsehole, so be it. Can't be any bigger an arsehole than a person continuing to gender someone after multiple reminders not to.

Not sure where you're getting the "build a libertarian society" bit from, prob shouldn't believe everything you read on lemmy.

These ultra-individualist types amuse me because they're more or less tacitly stating to the world that they're cowards. They exalt the individual over the collective, so the idea that anyone would care about someone or something more than themselves to the point of sacrificing their life for that someone or something is unfathomable.

Yes, speaking up for all the ethnic groups your heroes murdered, and feeling the wrath of every redfash shitlord on the internet for my efforts makes me a coward who won't sacrifice for the greater good (red fascism).

absolutely pathetic but predictable behavior of a emotionally stunted person.

If being emotionally stunted is what it takes to not join you in celebrating a failed state's ethnic cleansing campaigns, I'll consider it a blessing. Thank you.

Why do NATO leftists have such a strong need to be labelled as leftists while being anything but? It's always them doing this shit and calling themselves Trotskyists or Anarchists while doing so. They aren't happy just being liberals. They have to be some kind of radical when the only thing radical they have going are some social justice issues that only put them to the left of mouth-breathing conservatives.

Not from a NATO country. Not a leftist. Never breathe from my mouth.


ziq OP wrote (edited )

Idiot has failed to understand that anarchism is not anti-authority.

Oh, my bad. How silly of me. I really should have asked some red fash what anarchy is before opening my big mouth.

The whole point in my mind of anarchy is to find small communities that can typically mostly agree on issues, and they then vote democratically

Sounds like a political party.

authority would be participatory and derived through mutual agreement

Even tanks drink from the justified authority cup I guess.

How would you enact these polices; throughway revolution? That's the most authoritarian thing there is, it's inherently a small subset of the population enforcing it's will on the rest. When you begin to unravel what the idea of "authoritarianism" even is you can see that any wielding of political power, period, can rightfully be called authoritarianism.

Is this the point where they preach that Soviet tanks rolling into worker controlled factories to kill everyone is a justified authority?

("authoritarian" is) a term largely used by those in the imperial core to degrade those in the imperial periphery who've had the balls to wage any kind of real revolution. Authoritarianism is rarely applied to imperial core nations, no matter how brutal their policies are, and never in a way that dismisses everything about them; but the opposite is true for socialist countries.

There's a reason that the only socialist states to exist are "authoritarian"

See, if you say some bullshit enough times, the kids will start to quote it in their gulag memes. Anarchists believe capitalist states aren't authoritarian. Anarchists believe capitalist states aren't authoritarian. Anarchists believe capitalist states aren't authoritarian.

Advocating against revolution like this means, at the end of the day, instead of opposing the abuse of the global majority you'll instead enable and benefit from it as a US citizen. Socialists, and I mean the ones who've fought hard and worked hard, have laid down their lives to find whatever system works. I think dismissing them out of hand as "authoritian" not only denies learning the complex and fascinating reality on the ground, but also reveals unchallenged western and white biases.

Ethnic cleansing of all the minority and indigenous groups I listed to build a Marxist state is good because... to not celebrate these massacres would be... western bias? Did I unravel that correctly? And everyone who objects to those genocides is a US citizen?