ziq

ziq wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

Idk if this was aimed at me also, but I'm sorry if I said something hurtful. I lack ability to discern when I'm being cruel, rude or inappropriate.

I try to avoid talking to you because last time I said the wrong thing you deleted your account and I felt bad about it for weeks

5

ziq wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by lettuceLeafer in Friday Free Talk by emoticons

anarchist thing where people have extremely obscure definitions of words that u can't possibly find in a dictionary 

I agree with this. Like the weird way a lot of anarchists define democracy as "people cooperating" rather than the actual definition; it being a form of majoritarianism government. Or how they insist 'consensus' (people talking) is a form of democracy. Or that anarchy means ultra-democracy. None of it makes sense to anyone not steeped in half-baked breadtube ideology.

Doesn't apply to the words wealth or power tho. Those definitions are pretty universal. Power can certainly be anarchistic in some contexts: self-empowerment, power to the people, the power of love, etc. But in the context of "to strengthen a family's wealth and power"? That sounds like brandishing authority so you and yours can climb the hierarchy and improve your lots in life at the expense of others.

You can't realistically accumulate wealth and power without exploiting all the people you climb over to get the wealth and power. It requires domination, coercion and the near-constant othering and dehumanising of all the people you'd need to use to get ahead (because that's how the game you're maneuvering to win is structured).

Power and wealth can only exist if the powerless and impoverished are denied those ​privileges. It requires rigid hierarchy. And the wealthy and powerful of course then heavily invest their energy into maintaining their wealth and power and making sure all threats to their social domination and monetization of property and people are rendered inert.

​it is hard to do anarchy when you're permanently in survival mode, true. When you have nothing, all your energy has to be devoted to getting your next meal.

But it's even harder to do anarchy if you have everything and thus everything to lose.

9

ziq wrote

Hey all, longtime Sonic fan, recorder of anal beat boxing and arch anti tankie scum, ziq here.

So I've spent the past few months working on a self hostable, federated, autofellatio alternative called Slurpyboy.

9

ziq OP wrote

Reply to comment by kin in George Carlin on being anticiv by ziq

idk comrade, sounds like an ecofash publication... since when are we concerned with desire? such a frivolous thing can only inhibit the productivity of the worker and thus stifle the revolutionary project

9

ziq OP wrote (edited )

poor fancy boy, he's already lost 6 of his military titles, how will he provide for himself if he loses his dukeship too?

(literally what i heard some british 'expat' say today)

4