Public Modlogs
Check the mod logs of any subreddit that uses /u/publicmodlogs
A German vet of WW1 describes killing a man with a bayonet in a trench. They go on to elaborate on why this was wrong, questions why they had to kill another human being who they had no ill will towards and how he was compelled by the State to not see other humans as such as to be a good soldier.
I Need Your Opinion on ThisThere is a famous nationalist band in Serbia called Beogradski Sindikat. In their newest song, ‘Sparta’, they continuously misappropriate the Encircled A for their nationalist messages (in this picture: ‘Kosovo is Serbia’). When will rightists stop using our symbols which mean completely different things?
Based french anarchists in the background
You value the freedom of animals... but you want to kill them? What the fuck?
Or you know, just shot in the street.
I'm tired of mostly white vegans talking so damn loud all the time. Like chill out cuz I'm not the nigga factory farming sthu.
Using violence to fight the state is counter-intuitive, no? Since the state holds a monopoly of it, you would be striking where the enemy is strongest.
The french revolution was much different, than the protest of a few unions, which aren't even against the state itself, or even the status quo. Lighting a few buildings on fire inconveniences the government at best and kills innocent people at worst.
Squatting in Space Anyone?It's looking like even space travel could eventually be decoupled from the state. With the help of 3D printing, more decentralised/small scale forms of advanced manufacturing techniques are possible.
Friday Free TalkWeekly open discussion thread
Friday Free TalkWeekly open discussion thread
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Yeah I read the article, and it was a waste of time, if I wanted to take that perspective into consideration I would have just gone and ask one of the white 20-something ex-suburban music-festival “anarchists” in my area who never lift a finger to help someone else unless it’s for a social media post.
You want to improve the lives of youth, make some sacrifices, act like an adult and take responsibility for their safety and well-being.
Im not saying go work at a corporate office or some shit. I’ve devoted my life to community building with the land, I’ve worked in ecological restoration, emergency healthcare, and social services fields and raised two kids whose parents are deceased , and if the Peter Pans want to call me a sellout, let them. I’m too busy trying to uplift and strengthen my community to bother with all that.
I mean you can play Peter Pan all you want, I honestly dgaf… but anarchism ≠ irresponsibility.
I’m tired of all these self righteous punks out here acting like they’re liberated/enlightened or some shit when really i see immaturity and self-absorbed entitlement. Growing up means taking responsibility for the world you live in, it doesn’t mean selling out.
It has because from it depends whether there is enough working people for retired ones. If there is far more people that are retired than working ones then how are you able to pay them? Either you tax working people to death or give retirees pennies.
A short preface: I'm not going to get into the whole "just tax the rich to plug the budget gap", you can do your own homework about how much money is required versus what "taxing the rich" will bring in.
This comment will only address the fact that yes _lifespan and demographics have everything to do with retirement_.
> Taxation or pensions do not exist without a state.
So the elderly just work until their deaths? Then why are you upset at Macron? Is he not doing precisely what you want, reducing the amount of "retirement"?
No, clearly not.
So long as the elderly cease working yet receive resources (i.e. food, shelter, etc) there is retirement. Retirement is just "not working anymore", no state required.
> We have different views on the economy.
What you believe is irrelevant.
It is plain reality that if you do not adopt a "work or die" model, those who do work to obtain resources will need to share them with those who do not work.
The problem /u/XvX_k1r1t0_XvX_ki is explaining to you here is that _the ratio of the amount of people working to the amount of people not working/"retired" has changed_.
Those who are working will need to give up more of their earnings to sustain the retired population.
And I'll take this moment to answer to your reply down this chain as well:
> How did it work before capitalism?
How did it work in ancient times? It's literally called a "population pyramid" after the distinctive shape the chart has for societies before the demographic transition. A small top of _VERY FEW ELDERLY_. Fewer resources required to pay for retirement.
And the anti-capitalist slant there is cute, but ultimately pointless. Even without capitalism, demographics is what it is.
四二一
I've always tried to hold onto right wing beliefs to not seem like a commie and monarchism felt like it could create a neutral government if the leader was raised from birth then I realized that fascism will seep into every sort of power and even democracies are becoming worse for people's rights for the longest time I held socdem beliefs but always said it was just small capitalim I know I sound st_pid but that's m story
I think your kinda projecting your own experience of “self righteous punks” onto Flower Power.
I didn’t interpret the article as endorsing a lack of responsibility, it’s more so talking about how “coming of age” is a trap because it’s wrapped up in many societal norms. And when some people decide to live lives outside of traditional home-bound atomic-family life style, it’s always seen as irresponsible.
The Syria-Iraq Lie
Hi u/skeetmoneyyo - Your comment was removed automatically for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm tired of mostly white vegans talking so damn loud all the time. Like chill out cuz I'm not the nigga factory farming sthu.
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
Us military aid to ukraine 2022-23
Instructions for a happy human race! (Where we don't actually race) So I've kept this idea of an organized world in my head until I was about 12 and since then have only discovered how utterly and totally engulfed in chaos our beloved "system" is. So here I will propose my idea of how to fix humanity step by step in the most efficient and permanent way (except for maybe genocide?).Pease feel free to challenge me on any of my claims or views, I like getting challenged :3
Also I will be posting this in the biggest subs I know of since this is something that concerns EVERYONE! Mods: I implore you to ask yourself how important this is before deletion...
btw I hope someone copies this so it can't be killed and hidden ;)
here goes:
1. Unify humanity : Honestly this is like the simplest most obvious thing we could have done for DECADES that is nowhere near reality. All that needs doing is getting the word out across the internet to as many people as you can and getting them all on the same page (like a fb page or whatever) where once you have the majority (of ppl on Earth) you can be sure you'll be supported almost anywhere
2. Once unified the human race has to agree that the concept of currency is a useless one nowadays and only serves to make us compete with each other and to keep humanity shackled and impotent against capitalism and its many ghouls
3. Once unified AND unshackled I feel the most urgent problem is the climate change but I have a "woke, edgy and controversial" (necessary as I like to call it) way to help a bunch with that and basically eliminate most other human strife! What is this magical salvation you ask? Easy! Kill people! Not trolling, genuinely believe this is our only hope. So you know how there's like "limited resources" or whatever? Well the thing about that: logically the less people the less they consume so we just need to get our numbers down to a manageable level. Now personally I would love to see us like "almost extinct" where the only thing remaining is a small (1 000 000 peeps) community that focuses on survival and science, leaving the rest of the natural Earth to flourish but this is waaayyy too unrealistic so I would vote we get it down to at MOST 1 billion. I know this is the most controversial one and that's partly because of the question of how do we choose who to keep... well... this isn't really at all complicated... those of us who want this future, we can tell which people don't and will actively try to sabotage our utopia... so we just kill them, no? XD
4. Now that we are One and Free and Safe (relatively) as a whole we also need to save those who need a bit more saving, like the starving masses and burning forests and people in Turkey who now live in rubble, you know shit like that!
5. Then when we run out of people to save we can make ACTUAL CHANGES YAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!like rebuilding the cities, designing them primarily for pedestrians and public transport (which obviously also gets optimized), not working way more than medieval peasants, helping our addicted fellows with their disease as much as we would a cancer patient...
and from there I believe any RATIONAL person would be able to continue this train of humane humanity... honestly as far as rules go I would advocate for just a single one: DON'T BE A DICK!Because you know don't you? You always know when you do wrong! You see the choice in front of you and you think "right, this is the good, nice choice, the one I SHOULD pick.... however.... I COULD also do.... something counterproductive!" at which point you do and so the wrong choices seem to dominate us... At least I always know the right choice unless it only concerns me so it would seem super unlikely that nobody else would know... but then again maybe that's just what being an aspie means: just having way better big-picture judgement than NTs...
So that's it I guess! Like I said: feel free to question whatever and I'll do my best to answer. And if I just respond "This is the problem" I'm basically saying you're a person I would kill in the population revolution :)
That I have to organize with assholes who want to martyr me and all "lower-members" of the group just to achieve some sentiment of progress.
I have seen 10 organizations rise and fall since Occupy back in 2010.
None of them actually enpower people: all of them "ambulence-chased" themselves to exhuastion and killed the spirit of the members of their orgs.
If it actually acts as self defense effectively. I don’t think just going outside and shooting a cop in broad daylight would do good in the world. It would trigger a response to raise police funding and scare people off from any idea you wanted to promote, as well as yknow, kill someone’s family member. I think there is a good reason as to why especially marginalized communities don’t retaliate with mass shootings nearly as much as white men. Even with radical black movements in the states, they were very controlled and tactical with their violence. Violence is not good.
I think your interpretation might be a bit off. The article "ADULTHOOD IS A TRAP" is mainly about questioning societal norms around adulthood and encouraging readers to rediscover the freedom and joy of youth.
I think your idea that the article promotes hedonism and fetishizes youth might be an overreaction. The author's message is more about challenging conventional ideas about adulthood and maintaining a sense of curiosity and playfulness in life.
While the author does touch on anti-establishment and anti-consumerism themes, they don't explicitly endorse irresponsibility. Additionally, your assumption that the author has ulterior motives or is promoting morally questionable actions doesn't seem to be supported by the article.
Instead of assuming the worst, I think we should have a more balanced and nuanced discussion about the article's central ideas and how they could be thought-provoking and valuable. Let's focus on exploring those ideas rather than assuming negative intentions.
> How it is above private ownership and should be respected.
> There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
> Sign was painted, it said private property;
> But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
> This land was made for you and me.
> Well, as I was walking, I saw a sign there
> And on the sign it said "No Trespassing"
> But on the other side it didn't say nothing
> That side was made for you and me!
It's not about respecting private ownership, it's about shared ownership and rejecting private ownership of shared resources e.g. the land.
The song has a long history of being edited, changed and used for political purposes even Woody Guthrie himself did it with a version in 1944 to quote wikipedia `In 1944 during World War II, Guthrie prepared another version which drops the two verses that are critical of the United States from the original: Verse four, about private property, and verse six, about hunger.` - [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_Is_Your_Land#1944_version_lyrics)
*reposing, because I quoted what was written on his guitar and it triggered an auto-remove* (I get why, not complaining about that)
>I think your interpretation might be a bit off. The article "ADULTHOOD IS A TRAP" is mainly about questioning societal norms around adulthood and encouraging readers to rediscover the freedom and joy of youth.
>I think your idea that the article promotes hedonism and fetishizes youth might be an overreaction. The author's message is more about challenging conventional ideas about adulthood and maintaining a sense of curiosity and playfulness in life.
>While the author does touch on anti-establishment and anti-consumerism themes, they don't explicitly endorse irresponsibility. Additionally, your assumption that the author has ulterior motives or is promoting morally questionable actions doesn't seem to be supported by the article.
All of this. I think the people commenting about 'irresponsibility' and 'fetishization' are being way too literal and rigid about the use of the word 'adulthood', when, in my reading of the piece, it's way more about rejecting the societal expectations of adulthood and what accompanies that, and rather, embracing the feelings of joy and wonder and learning that we remember experiencing in our own youth.
Cop Indicted for Leaking Video of Cops Shoving Baton in Man's Mouth Until He Died
A wholesome act of anarchy if I ever saw one
If they did, that’s lame.
But I have to say, you asked a question that you don’t seem interested in having any real dialogue on, past short snarky replies which is disappointing
People like yourself kill animals because they enjoy doing so.
> How it is above private ownership and should be respected.
> There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
> Sign was painted, it said private property;
> But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
> This land was made for you and me.
> Well, as I was walking, I saw a sign there
> And on the sign it said "No Trespassing"
> But on the other side it didn't say nothing
> That side was made for you and me!
It's not about respecting private ownership, it's about shared ownership and rejecting private ownership of shared resources e.g. the land.
The song has a long history of being edited, changed and used for political purposes even Woody Guthrie himself did it with a version in 1944 to quote wikipedia `In 1944 during World War II, Guthrie prepared another version which drops the two verses that are critical of the United States from the original: Verse four, about private property, and verse six, about hunger.` - [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_Is_Your_Land#1944_version_lyrics)
*edit* Coffee was done.
> Guthrie himself was a known communist. And wrote "This machine kills fascists"
Yup! A great phrase, but he was also human and as human had his flaws. He supported the invasion of Poland and Stalin, he later switched these stances. He at times was deeply racist and also helped support african-american musicians and civil rights. He tended to switch stances when one became unpopular with the left.
TL:DR it's a complicated song with a complicated history, it doesn't mean it is inherently bad, or can't be used for good. There are just layers of complication that need to be addressed and dealt with.
Personaly as someone who lives in the United States, it's an OK song, there are better and there are far far worse songs about this state.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
Short little video I did about the shocking Iran-Iraq war, with some jokes and credible defense takes mixed in. Thoughts?
Hi there, u/3000BlaccTLAMs! Unfortunately, it appears that your account is shadowbanned by Reddit. This is not something that we here at r/Anarchism can do anything about. Please [contact the admins](https://reddit.com/appeal) to get this issue worked out with them.
Hi there, u/3000BlaccTLAMs! Unfortunately, it appears that your account is shadowbanned by Reddit. This is not something that we here at r/Anarchism can do anything about. Please [contact the admins](https://reddit.com/appeal) to get this issue worked out with them.
Short little video I did about the shocking Iran-Iraq war, with some jokes and credible defense takes mixed in. Thoughts?
Anarchist parentingCan yall vibe check a parenting hunch I have.
I’ve noticed my relationship with my child (amab) has changed a lot over the kindergarten year. Way more than other years. I couldn’t really say exactly how but I can just see a little streak of something that gives me some feeling. With that in mind I was watching some his friends play the other day at the school pick up and the boys, not my child in this instance, were busy stomping a small shrub into the dirt pretty forcefully. It occurs to me that I am starting to see my child encountering some forms of masculinity that are possibly more stereotypical and maybe more aggressive then he is used to. Like, I might not want to start this young talking to him about toxic masculinity but maybe I need to be, because these kids all have older brothers, dads whatever and they are acting out what they see as gender typical behaviors and without another narrative it might be easy for my child to feel a little lost or maybe it’s just a lot to navigate for a child. Am I way over thinking this. And how do I or should I even, talk about masculinity or gender with a 6 yo. Maybe this is way off the mark idk what do you think. If anyone has any books recs i’m all ears.
My child self indentifies as a boy and i’m perfectly happy to let him express himself as he sees fit, in our house it is always clear that we each have autonomy over our own bodies. We live in the southern US…so a lot toxic dude bro dads and I don’t want my child to feel like he is navigating that alone. At the same time i’m always careful to bring up big things like that and bring hard topics into his life that maybe don’t need to be there yet.
Also all the radical/anarchist parenting subs seem pretty dead, any parents out there looking to start somethin.
Nope, not at all. If everyone has an actual equal say, in a system, society, "government" if you must, that is the absence of hierarchy and completely in line with the actual defining feature of anarchy.
Try again slugger.
An Anarchist Approach to Helping With Menstrual Cramps
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
Mutual Aid MondayHave a mutual aid project you'd like to promote? In need of some aid yourself? Let us know.
---
^Please ^note ^that ^r/Anarchism ^moderators ^cannot ^individually ^verify ^or ^vet ^mutual ^aid ^requests
We're launching an indiegogo for a special edition of issue #2 tomorrow (Tuesday 2/21/23) at this URL:
[https://igg.me/at/Durruti](https://igg.me/at/Durruti)
You can get signed issues and a bunch of other swag there (also digital issues if you want to read it on a budget)
30% of all pledges (less shipping, taxes and fees) go to 501c3 "Razom for Ukraine" to provide critical mutual aid to injured and displaced Ukrainian civillians.
You can also get issue #1 inexpensively from AK Press:
https://www.akpress.org/durruti-shadow-of-the-people.html
first rational person i have seen in this sub. people like the one you are arguing with have fallen so hard to current propaganda that is being pushed. for them just to assume you are a nazi sympathizer because you do not agree with violence and then trying to silence your thought by telling you to get the fuck out of here, shows they are not remotely near you on the intelligence scale.
What is a justification for treating other animals the way we do (for flesh, clothing, etc.), that is not dependent on a species-based hierarchy?It's clear that not everyone here is vegan. I'm assuming that almost all of you (who aren't vegan) will be opposed to treating human beings in the way we treat certain other animals (for flesh, clothing, etc.) in your current circumstance.
This is a clear moral hierarchy where the trivial pleasures of human animals are put above the freedom of non-human animals, on the basis of an immutable trait (species membership).
How do you square this with your opposition to hierarchies?
Anarchist direct action in response to the invasion of Iraq
Wake up, cattle!
New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" license plates are made by the incarcerated
>Oh! Soooo do you go out and capture your food in the wild with your claws, tear the flesh open and swallow it with the blood and guts as well?
Sooo... It is the preparation of food you have an ideological problem with? If I did eat raw animal flesh straight from an animal I had killed with my bare hands you would find that ethical? If not, wouldn't the lions actions also be unethical? We are all animals after all. You may argue that I live in a society that has surpassed the need to do so, which sounds an awful lot like an appeal to societal authority... I thought you believed in not "relying on others to decide values for you"
>Tell me...do lions and tigers have factories processing their food, or do they get it directly, naturally with their biology?
You are gonna have to define "natural biology" for this to make any sense. (hint: it is a western (ie Kantian) ethical framework that involves viewing the "natural" world as somehow "other" to human actions (kinda sus in a human supremacist way if you ask me)). Good luck.
When we are discussing my opinion on the problematic nature of vagan food politics , how can my opinion of that be "off topic"?
Go masturbate to "Earthlings" again or whatever it is ya'll do for fun.
Anarchy - a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Quick google search.
Anarchy does not mean passing MORE LAWS to regulate businesses. If anything it’s the absence of laws and you let the companies do whatever the hell they want without limits. People misunderstand anarchy.
Yeah, it's fine to be vegan (or queer or spiritual or anti-civ or syndicalist or platformist), but just keep it to yourself and in your own space so we can yammer on about what's *really* important for Anarchism...
Back into the closet you marginals!
Wake up!
The perfect target
Today's Empire is Tomorrow's ashes. Solidarity with the people of France fighting for their worker's rights. VIVE LA COMMUNE
I don't understand transphobia. I just want to live my fucking life in a way that doesn't make me want to kill myself every time I see myself
That’s kinda where I stopped being an AnCom and started just being a Com.
Through a lot of my interactions with Reddit anarchists, even though they talk a big game about hating cops and identifying them as oppressors, they don’t really seem to have much ideas on what to do about them post-revolution. They’re not just going to magically disappear into thin air.
I mean, if a Fascist in a Blue Uniform spent his entire career using institutional violence to throw single mothers out on their ass for refusing to pay their landlord and unpayable rent payment, do you really think they should just walk free? Because I sure don’t. They deserve nothing less than being shot with a ball of their own feces for deciding that their job was worth more than her situation.
>The point of the guillotine is not to defeat ones enemies. That is already done once it is in use.
In many cases you'd be right, but in the specific context of hereditary power (such as the power of the king and aristocracy), you can only defeat your enemies by killing them. Putting them in custody is not enough since you don't know what may happen next as long as the person with legitimate power to reign is still alive. That's literally why Louis XVI was killed, because he fled custody and tried to rally foreign powers to fight back the people.
It's not clear how this would apply to modern day leaders. Killing a recently new elected leader of a democratic regime would be completely useless in most cases, sure, but for some tyrants with very strong legitimacy, not killing them when you have the chance to may backfire very badly.
In many cases, the point of the guillotine is to defeat one enemy.
Not to kill the mold, but a lot of people are probably in support of the fascists there. (Not specifically in this protest, but in general) So beheading the conservative macron would give us the fascist Le pen. Not an upgrade whatsoever sadly
Not to kill the mood, but a lot of people are probably in support of the fascists there. (Not specifically in this protest, but in general) So getting rid of the conservative macron would give us the fascist Le pen. Not an upgrade whatsoever sadly
Yeah, it's fine to be vegan (or queer or spiritual or anti-civ or syndicalist or platformist), but just keep it to yourself and in your own space so we can yammer on about what's *really* important for Anarchism...
Back into the closet you marginals!
It's hilarious to me when an anarchism subreddit needs you to look through a list of words that YOU CAN'T SAY in order to be more inclusive and socially appropriate. This is a goddamn authoritarian subreddit
Bootlicking Intensifies
Élisée Reclus: Veganarchism, Violence, and Colonialism
How can an uncontroversial anarchist analysis of the Commune get so many downvotes in an anarchist setting? What gives, compañero/as?
Gee, I'm sure the cow will feel less pain if I bludgeon it to death out in the field, or the coyote will feel better that it got shot 10 times out in the woods instead of elsewhere.
Ah Yes. Our Anarchist plan to (check notes) elect a Centrist Democrat. Dang. He caught us.
I hate this argument so fucking much.
"No ethical consumption..."
Sure, it's true, I don't doubt it, but it sounds like a lazy excuse to not try and live in accordance with a freer, more liberating sort of existence, even to an extent. To brush aside those who may try, even a little, and instead keep this "anarchist" shit in the realm of theory and pontification, rather than let it manifest in any tangible, actual sense. And furthermore, if there's no ethical consumption, why be an anarchist? Why not be a cop, a Nazi, or a tradcath? All consumption is the same, is it not? In the eyes of this logic, the swastika is just as fine. Why not embrace it and become a bigoted, sociopathic libertarian who prints rifles to bury "groomers"?
I'm pretty sure humans put themselves on top long before Jesus came onto the scene. Pretty sure early hominids felt similar. But that's besides the point. I don't think there is anything about queer people that can kill a straight person. Like if a straight person tried dating a queer person, that's not going to kill them. Going vegan can legitimately kill people. Should those people just accept that and die to "knock them down a peg"?
There are people who cannot be vegan. They simply can't. It will kill them. Should we let them die? Should we tell them that their lives aren't worth saving?
Ehhh… I think parks are destructive. I don’t like nature being caged! I live out in the backwoods, I could die at any moment! And I love it! I’m at peace, truly one with the cycle of nature, not being embalmed and stuffed into a box to never rot…
the only downside to this is that damn coyotes ate my fucking cat, and my other cat killed one in revenge. The other cat is a fucking badass. I also have killed a couple of coyotes when they ate my cat, since they are a bit overpopulated and I wanted revenge. I found the one that ate my cat after five kills. I cut open all their stomachs and searched for the fur. I collected all the pelts and sewed myself a nice coat! I then cut up the coyotes meat and fed it to my dog and cats.
But anyways back on topic about getting rid of parks and having true nature instead! There are no cops! It’s peaceful, secluded and you can do whatever you want! You use tech less because wifi sucks! All kinds of positives are to be had in true nature! So build yourself a shack today!!!
Well, even posing the question was so offensive and out of line that it needed to be removed by the mods here.
He's literally right lol
What do you mean it's "for a cause"? This accomplishes nothing.
Wow, really sticking it to the man by spray-painting a park bench 🙄
I put up a "Capitalism or the Ecosystem" poster in my city and this was someone's response. Now I want to paste something on top to reply 😅
When you can't form a coherent sentence so you MUST speak in emoji.
You should just stop talking on the internet. You're bad at it.
Hi! I am conducting a dissertation research on the role of women and how they are social agents of change that sparks revolutions. My focus for this research is on the ongoing Iranian women's protest movements that are happening right now! I'd greatly appreciate it if you could complete my survey!!https://rhulpolitics.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV\_cUwwHYsIeZHt8H4
Why Not Both? Anarchist Meme
>Why? Because the answer is obviously no?
Because animals have no moral agency. Their only motivation and "choice" is to survive
>Did I say anything about laws of nature?
Your original question was whether I thought superiority was inherent in nature.
>But why? You haven't given any reasons.
If you can eat a tasty burger without killing an animal but you *choose* to do so anyway, how would that not be you expressing your superiority over that animal?
I have to say I find this argument really strange, considering we already have this more or less in reverse.
We are legally free to kill and eat (certain) nonhuman animals. However, in most places and in most situations, nonhuman animals who cause harm to humans are executed, regardless of reason.
So in our current society, we expect those with the least power to behave the most responsibly (or, at least, we kill them if they don't), and that's.... more ethically consistent, somehow?
Hey, the last thing I said in my message was, feel free to ask me about my thoughts. You and others seem to be using my comment as a strawman for your moral agenda.
Don't shame people because of your perceived view of their choices. Don't shame people for not choosing to struggle and fight a fight. That's fine virtue signaling, moral impressive suggesting crap.
I lived without using a single fucking dollar for hair-a-decade and having chickens and goats were essential to that.
They up cycle waste into higher did sources and create rich fertilizers. I don't believe it's immoral to kill a goat. Eating animal products can be a tool to dismantle capitalism.
I call l could make wild assumptions about veganism based on my biases, too. Let's try it! All you ethics-lacking assholes want to claim superiority while importing much-needed coconuts and avocados from near the equator. Who harvested that? Are you saving the world with the gas you needed to burn to get those here? Etc.
The point is your prejudice is showing. You're biased to your prescribed lifestyle and I don't want that on me. I don't want your morals either.
When you raise animals, they're your friends. They only have one bad day if you do it right. That partnership can be used to enrich your lives, and even save animal genetics that capitalism has no incentive to work to keep on the planet.
You think so? In my experience, usually everybody congratulates the killer on a ',humane, clean kill' and gloats about how delicious the animal looks.
>Screw off with your forceful beliefs.
Oh hey, I'm trying to tell you human supremacists to do the same! See, we do share something in common! We both hate forceful beliefs! Human supremacy/anthropocentrism is a belief that humans are entitled to the bodies of animals. This belief is materialized in the form of slaughterhouses where animals are tortured and killed!
Anarchist views on the death penalty?First of all, I obviously know that anarchists oppose the power of states to kill people. I also know that anarchists are in favor of the abolition of prisons and policing.
My question is whether anarchists believe in a more distributive or retributive conception of justice. In an anarchist society, would it "be allowed" (for lack of a better term) to kill or otherwise punish people who have done wrong? How does this factor in to conceptions of revolution; what does it mean if you can kill a capitalist as part of a revolution but not put them to death afterwords? In a stateless society, who, if anyone has the "authority" to kill another person, and what grants them that authority? How do anarchists view the hypothetical "authority" of a workers council/horizontally democratic, non-higherarchal governmental entity? How does this factor into reform vs revolution and pacifism vs diversity of tactics in the anarchist tradition? What has been the position of past anarchisms?
Because we cannot allow anyone to question the oppression narrative, not even a little bit. Just accept it, and think as you're told by your enlightened superiors. Even uttering the question is giving aid and comfort to fascists.
If you think in the long term, you have to start from scratch unless you intend to kill everyone else. This is not an option for 1000 reasons and therefore there is nothing left but to go the slow way and change society from the ground up. Everything else is counterproductive and will only cause more problems. And yes of course when it comes to survival it is something else but if you take a step back to the meta level and think about what the long term goals are you will not achieve anything for the collective or society.
Do you know what stops hate? Education, awareness and understanding that we are all human beings. You won't change conservatives' minds by shouting at them and hating them. You will only become a right-wing pipe and give them more arguments. And if you are not for freedom and do not stand for liberal values, you are not really for individual development and therefore anti-trans.
Hate will never end hate
I thought the trans movement is mainstream liberal not anarchy?
Lame graphic.
Because we cannot allow anyone to question the oppression narrative, not even a little bit. Just accept it, and think as you're told by your enlightened superiors. Even uttering the question is giving aid and comfort to fascists.
What does anarchy have to do with trans? Serious question
>transgenders need special expensive medication
The exact same medications that cis people sometimes need. In fact all our forms of HRT are more commonly taken by cis people than trans people, except for injectable testosterone
You might as well rant about women constantly needing expensive medical intervention, due to childbirth and menopause. Or people with mental health issues needing very expensive therapy. It's nonsensical to fixate on the healthcare some of us trans people require, especially when it's made as difficult to access as it is. If it is a big conspiracy of the healthcare business, then they're not doing a very good job of it since transsexual healthcare is next to impossible to access in most countries
there are quite a lot more reasons to organize but yeah
Nah, im not transphobic. Considering the fact that entire medicine field is industrialized, and transgenders need special expensive medication after and during transition, I am skeptic about the intentions behind this propaganda.
Not sure I get the questionbut CrimethInc has book called Recipes for Disaster
Not sure I get the questionbut CrimethInc has book called Recipes for Disaster
Anarchist cookbookThe r/cookbook people weren't too kind to my inquiry so I bring my questions to the second half of the title, I was looking for a copy of the anarchist cookbook mainly out of curiosity and also because I've always been one for non food recipe books, I've been collecting lots of survival guides. But common sense would entail versions you'd find on large websites such as Amazon would be heavily altered / censored so my question for you folks is, A. Am I correct in my feeling that Amazon's copies are altered
B. Where could I find a unaltered copy
Sincerely an anti government redneck :)
Dems
I hope all of the anarchists that voted for him because "at least it's not Le Pen" reconsider their stance.
Solidarity.
That qualified as, and still does, harm reduction, just because two things are bad doesn't mean one isn't much much worse or a shorter time scale
Lol that’s some bullshit, show typical people footage of people shooting and skinning an animal and they’ll be disgusted. Let alone factory farm footage.
imagine if we had the ability to neck rope cops
You don’t have to kill anything, the animal could die and you're standing in the vicinity. Bam! Guilt-free nutrients that don’t come from plants.
Sh03-t! I missed it. Is this happening again/is there an archive?
Shoot me now. "trigger a transference response". Wtf are these word combinations? Pseudoscientists be damned
Wtf. All you did is give me a definition based on the you being triggered by the mere invocation of the word "hierarchy" .
i'm kinda curious what's up with him because i might have personal experience. i'm a firm believer in not getting people ~~killed~~ **edit after automod message: hurt! not getting people hurt with bad dietary advice! hell idk, you tell me how to phrase this**, and even in *generally deferring to experts*, if that helps, but honestly, i'd probably have no idea whatsoever. feel free to direct him to my reddit history or DM me if you want
if this is a closed case: best of luck to you all
We are people indeed and I even agree with what you are saying. Approaches that you outlined work great in an atomized society.
The issue with drugs here is not the fact that we want to control what another person does because we hate that something. The example from a comment above with "are you going to ban gays if you do not like seeing them" illustrates clearly that people misunderstood the reason. We are against drugs because we are building a community where people care about each other. Seeing a person who you care about killing themselves with drugs is not "just their choice". It affects other people who care about that person very deeply to the point of collapse. So minding our own business and caring is not compatible. At least in the way we see caring.
Nah. Almost nobody is uncomfortable with the concept or action of killing an animal and processing it's body. For most people, ending the life of an animal is as easy as ticking a box or stimming rocks against the lake. Animal life is pretty damn cheap.
Friday Free TalkWeekly open discussion thread
Friday Free TalkWeekly open discussion thread
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Anarcho primtivism telegram
No? I literally said indigenous, why would you inject something irrelevant I never said into the convo?
Also nah, fulfilling the role of a predator in a balanced way with nature can often promote life in the area in general. It’s either that or we kill both predatory animals and prey animals so we’re not killing animals anymore, or we get rid of all predatory animals and micromanage all natural ecosystems by managing the breeding of every prey animal in the wild so they don’t overrun the ecosystem. Delusional shit. Humans can fulfill the role of predator in an even more humane and less hierarchical way than many natural predators do.
I'm not even saying Veganism is morally wrong. Just that it is a hierarchical belief system which expects those with the greatest power to behave the most responsibly.
There have been plenty of hisorical hierarchies where people considered morally better are more restricted in action.
The caste system of India is one historical example. People of the Brahmin caste are not allowed to eat meat or handle anything leather because killing and death are related with spiritual corruption. Similarly they are not allowed to be served food by someone of a lower caste because someone lower cooking food is considered a type of taining the food. Brahmin however are expected to give out food and alms to people of lower caste.
An example in fiction is the proles in 1984. The proles are just regular people who are considered almost like animals by members of the Party. But otherwise they are pretty much free to do as they wish, they can even mildly criticize the Party so long as it doesn't verge into real possible revolutionary action. Meanwhile Party members are watched 24/7 for any deviance.
Very few people resort to cannibalism or have ever done so in circumstances of desperation, though. And it's funny how there are tons of 'killing animals for food is good because people need to eat', yet cannibalism is always wrong regardless of context.
Look bud, my comment on your post wasn't an attempt at a debate. I think you know how often this topic comes up in this sub and how it always turns out, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have seen a pattern here, and my comment was to point out that pattern. You have done nothing to stop the pattern in your own post. So here's the pattern:
Vegan says they want to do a poll and asks how many vegans there are here,
Because this is a poll and non-vegans believe it to be in good faith, they respond (because that's how polls work. You need both a yes and a no, not just a yes.)
Vegans see the non-vegans and go after them. Some are kind and just asking questions, sure, but others go down the route you have chosen and call people murderers and slavers and other, frankly, other very strange accusations,
The comments become a toxic wasteland.
So let's pretend for a second that I think you didn't intend for that to happen, as I'd hoped last night. I would rather offer a warning in good faith back in the hope that you would at the very least keep it in mind and be kind and offer grace towards those who aren't vegan. Sadly, you didn't do that. But, frankly, idc. It just proves to me that all these "poll to see who's vegan" posts are the trap I thought they were. So no, I'm not going to humor you with a debate. You are the one making the positive claim, therefore it is your duty to first prove why one must be vegan to be an anarchist.
> What if your symptoms are triggered by everything but chicken body parts?
I would never know, just like you won’t ever know if eating cat or dog bodyparts give you super powers.
> Your morals dictated that being the indirect cause of discomfort to another being was to be avoided even at the cost of your pain/pleasure, and this is a net win for you.
True. I don’t think I’m the only person with these sets of morals though. I think once you start being vegan and practice it for a few years, you likely won’t enjoy seeing the an entire aisle of dead carcasses in the grocery store labeled by limb. At least, last night, my mom and dad, who became vegan about 2 years after me and have been vegan for 3 years now, mentioned that they find animal bodyparts off putting, in ways they didn’t before. Essentially, the reaction after a while of not eating pig bodyparts, will be the same as the reaction you have about eating cat bodyparts today, and I think your position on not eating cats is right, and I just extend that out to other animals.
Oh yeah, you’re totally right. The the reason the cover is like this is that it makes for a more compelling image. Showing a more realistic cover where the gunner is firing behind or to the side is less effective for an image like this because the action is moving away from the viewer.
No gunner should ever do what ours is doing, it would be too easy to accidentally hit Makhno or one of the horses.
Do you really believe in your project? If so, take your winnings and invest it.
Wait a second, you're a pro-gambler/card counter, looking to make a documentary about how the system failed. You're either a conman or a bad gambler.
I could probably have a better discussion with you on how credit cards work like you've wanted to talk about before.
You're the individual who wants to compete for capital from a company to say that the system doesn't work... sounds like you need to crawl back into the hole and find a clue. Have fun licking boots.
Is that your pitch to get capital?
$30 Film School, Rebel Without A Crew... we live in a time where producing entertainment is at it's easiest/cheapest.
Grow some tougher skin dude.
Ok, ok, we have to somewhat work in the confines of the system. But come on, get a little bit of that DIY mentality.
Wait, you could use a Soviet made camera... and you might be able to barter the price.
Just sounds like you are defeating your own purpose.
$30 Film School... use some DIY methods. Don't try to rely on the system to tell the system it's wrong, because you're just proving the system works. If you think there's a better way actually do it the better way.
So you're an individual looking to compete with other individuals to get a grant/money/capital from a company/organization?
No.
Well good luck finding a therapist who doesn't want money for their time. Personally I think therapists are shams who have created quite the little capitalist niche for themselves. I'd recommend studying some stoic philosophy.
So you need to rely on someone to justify how you feel... doesn't sound very anarchist.
> literally ripping out your hair during a nervous breakdown
Yeah, you might want to seek any kind of professional help you can get.
This is actual praxis because the cop now has to go back to the station and change and that time isn’t spent harassing black people
Queer, crip, vegan anarchist
Way to cry "muh anthropomorphism" and ignore your own anthropoCENTRISM and supremacist ideology.
Here you go you slave-driving POS: https://our-compass.org/2014/06/13/slavery-its-still-a-thing-christopher-sebastian-mcjetters/
Edit: Apparently I have to be more careful in how I say your comment lacked any semblance of critical thinking.
Why feel terrible? Nobody has ever had regrets about killing animals, whether necessary or not.
Yep recently got downvoted for saying I agree with veganism but, after trying to pull my diet back closer to veganism and almost ending up in hospital after losing 4kg drastically, I simply can’t…like..I’ll die. And I know what I am doing with cooking, macros, fibre, low FODMAP etc etc. And if I lose weight drastically my baby will have to drink formula because I can’t nurse them (and no shame on those who prefer or need to use formula, fed is best). Formula which I can’t afford anyhow btw. So…As much as I support posts like this, would it kill OPs to consider disabled people.
>We can only agree that we must satisfy beyond the need to dominate others to get satisfaction which begins with post-scarcity.
Animal agriculture dominates the lives of individuals who could be much happier outside it's abusive and fatal grip.
Not dominating others isn't always satisfying. In those situations, I think ethics are more important.
>Any will even a vegan one is fundamentally a will that is imposed on animals.
I agree with this. However, not being vegan imposes on pigs, chickens, cows, fish, and other a animals on top of ones killed in crop production to feed those animals.
Animals only convert a small amount of resources to food, the rest is wasted.
Yeah idk if you know this but animals have to eat, and feeding 70 billion of them every year requires us to grow crops, which wouldn't ya know it those crops are grown by exploited people!
Also, you can grow corn without killing someone, but you can't have a beef burger without murder. Sure, no consumption is ethical, but to pretend that there isn't more ethical consumption choices is absurd. If you can live on soy burgers, and the cost of that is poor working conditions for the laborers, that sucks, but it is in fact better than buying orphan meat burgers.
You realize workers in slaughter houses get PTSD, commit suicide at a far higher rate, and are more likely to commit violent crime, right? You know, because killing defenseless animals all day is traumatizing.
Oh and you realize that most crops we grow go to animals, right? 80% of soy production is for animal feed, so say goodbye to the Amazon rainforest and hello to climate change that disproportionately effects developing countries!
> I don't come from a lineage with a strong background in being enslaved, and the parallel still offends me.
The comparison is apt, and those that have faced oppression often agree.
>“In the midst of our high-tech, ostentatious, hedonistic lifestyle, among the dazzling monuments to history, art, religion, and commerce, there are the black boxes. These are the biomedical research laboratories, factory farms, and slaughterhouses – faceless compounds where society conducts its dirty business of abusing and killing innocent, feeling beings. These are our Dachaus, our Buchenwalds, our Birkenaus. Like the good German burghers, we have a fair idea of what goes on there, but we don’t want any reality checks.”
- Dr. Alex Hershaft, Warsaw Ghetto survivor
The link between speciesism and racism is undeniable to any that have studied it, I would encourage you to do that, perhaps starting [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/comment/j94ivug/).
Your post was removed due to your account being too young. If you think your post should be approved, [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAnarchism) and we will evaluate it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Lmfao, this is some classist, ableist bullshit right here.
Carnism relies on ableism, many arguments for why it is ethically fine to kill animals rely on them not being intelligent or capable in the same ways we are.
>Whatever your personal moral feelings are about veganism,
Fuck morals, fuck ethics. I'm anti hierarchy and speciesists aren't.
>the fact is that many people in marginalized communities cannot afford, find, or prepare a 100% plant-based diet due to any number of factors.
Yeah veganism is cheaper, and ingredients tend to cook faster too. No consequences for eating raw soy or raw beans, but raw meat will fuck you up.
>What about lack of access in food deserts?
You're telling me that your isolated location doesn't have rice and beans? The only source of protein is meat? Seriously?
>Physical/mental disabilities that prevent people from preparing a diverse and healthy plant-based diet?
Probably the fairest point in your whole comment, still doesn't make the oppression of animals right though.
>Lack of knowledge or education on veganism due to say, I don't know, working three jobs just to survive?
Oh so I can torture, rape or murder so long as I am busy enough not to know it's wrong. Gotcha.
>Gatekeeping leftist ideologies from a classist, ableist perspective dripping with privlege is cringe AF.
Given that rich nations are the ones chowing down on animal corpses, I'd say eating expensive, resource intensive foods like meat is the privilege. Your average American eats 124kg of meat every year, your average Indian? 4kg per year. [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption)
Here's an idea, fight supremacy even if you benefit from it. [Speciesism is bigotry, straight up](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/comment/j94ivug/), and you can't call yourself a liberationist while you support the torture, rape and murder of others just because they are different than you.
Link between libre software, degrowth?Oh, well. I do not know what others do, but it seems there is little intersection between libre (GPL, other licenses) software, degrowth as philosophy and anarchy as practical, everyday activity.
I for example quite dislike when seemingly small, minimalist software project suddenly require few gigabytes for toolchain downloading/compiling (precompiled toolchain just for mainstream x86_64). Or when new, exiting 1 Gb dependency on fast-moving LLVM introduced. I still can compile all this on my desktop or even laptop, but I dislike generic direction it travels. But is anything can be done?
I like Skackware because I can rebuild package easily here, just for removing dependency, adding dependency, general patching. But even Slackware does not live in vacuum. If kernel/gcc/glibc break (with glee) support for older hardware or software - there is little community can do ...
So, I thought may be "retro" but libre/open source/free software actually can be used for some kind of alternative history enacting, when you take software to different route compared to reality, and try to keep various components reasonably small and within reach even for not very hardcore/pro programmers with their latest hardware.
Also, I though "retro" libre software (as opposed to period-correct proprietary software) also might be useful even outside of retro hardware - for example only way to have virtual root on unrooted Android tablet is to use virtual machine like qemu in termux or Limbo as "app". So I can have virtual Slackware i486, or even SMP "pentium". As long as qemu keep itself buildable for termux. But they plan to drop support for 32-bit hosts. I currently use tablet on aarch64, but 32-bit tablets still around.
Guess I should at least try and raise this on qemu-devel ....
Where did I say anything about encouraging? Acknowledging is not the same thing.
Why do you apply human concept to animals if we are different from them?
Who's them anyway? Do you think the same reality applies to mice, elephants, seals, starlings, buffaloes, puffer fishes, and crocodiles?
Humans are different, and all the other animals are the same? Yet somehow, it's the meat eaters that are human supremacist?
Do you see how seeing the world as a binary is ridiculous?
There's accounts of female chimpanzees killing all the males of their group because they were too violent and rapey. What do you think of that?
Do i think we should emulate them? No. I simply understand that chimps, just like us, have agency and thoughts. And came up with a solution. I am not judging them for murder. Because there's no point. Their reality isn't ours, even though there are similarities.
We are no more or less different from them than they are from hyenas.
The way they live is valid. Whatever change happens to they way of life is valid.
The same applies to us.
>The consumption of meat is not a crime against anything
you literally have to kill an animal. From the eyes of the animal it’s definitely a crime.
>you can shit talk me for being a scavenger but your outlook is fucking lame.
That’s not what I’m doing. I’m “shit talking” you because you eat murdered animals.
Well damn guess I’ll just fuck off to r/communism and be a tankie. But since you’re holding that gate you should know….. Your veganism isn’t victimless plenty of POCs get exploited for your diet. Anyways Ciao
>It's my thought that a lot of animals wouldn't exist the current world if we don't bring them with us. In my mind, it's sorta a defacto genecide by attrition if we don't raise animals and keep them safe by our modern understanding of the world.
We only bring these animals in the world to imprison and murder them, we also bring them into the world in numbers that they could never realistically reproduce at.
As for your "genocide by attrition" sentiment... Are you really arguing that forcefully breeding a group, imprisoning them and then killing them forever is better than letting them die off? Even if that is your stance, it still reeks of prejudice. You're treating these animals as a monolith without wants or needs. They never consented to being bred and imprisoned, that is enough reason to stop doing it. Additionally, these are individuals, and subjecting millions of individuals to pain and suffering cannot be justified simply because it continues their species. A chicken cares about having enough room to spread its wings, not extinction.
>On the subject of slavery. I don't think that is appropriate to call animals slaves. I think they aren't our equivalent or experience our world in the same way we do.
A pig sees through its eyes, just as you do, it breathes through its lungs, just as you do. Each part of a pig mirrors your body, it smells with its nose pumps blood with its heart, hears with its ears.
So by what magic would its brain not be like your own?
I concede that you are not identical to a pig, but to pretend that you and I do not share similarities:this is self deception.
Animals feel every emotion you do, if you or a pig is struck with a bat, you react the same. If you think that animals do not experience the world in a similar way you think incorrectly, and without regard for our scientific understanding of biology and sentience.
>A human enslaved experiences these things and I think it's not the experience of my goats and chickens and dogs and cats.
I am quite confident that if you own only a few animals, your relationship to them is kinder than most. Factory farms are the modern concentration camps, but that doesn't mean that individual farming isn't problematic. By what right are your animals **yours?** Why is there a relationship of property rather than camaraderie? When did you first start believing you were entitled to another person's body?
First of all, fair point on the india abstaining from meat for religious reasons, but that list still has all the developing countries at the bottom. Exploited areas are poorer and meat is a luxury good, that is a fact, carnism is privilege.
> Perhaps to you personally your next meal is not so important but that’s specific to you. To me skipping a meal can have dire consequences.
As dire as what will happen to the animal you ate? I doubt it.
>If I inadvertently fast for too long I can, and do black out, and while running heavy equipment that can be less than ideal.
I'm not asking you to fast, eat something that doesn't have feelings and a life.
>I did learn a new word today “ specieist.” To be honest I don’t quite understand what it means. I am all for human equality but do you honestly assert the life of a squirrel is equal to that of your child?
My child would have more worth *to me* than a squirrel, this says nothing about what their lives are worth, it says only that I value one more than the other. My discrimination is also an emotional one, rather than one built on speciesism.
Could you name the trait a human has that an animal does not have that qualifies humans for ethical consideration?
In other words, why is it wrong to murder a human, but not an animal?
Like if you breeze over everything else I write, sure, fuck it, but *why is it wrong to rape and kill a human?* Tell me that, and if you can, then explain why it's fine to do it to an animal.
>You invoke cannibalism as a social taboo to drive home a point, failing to realize cannibalism is almost instinctive in a survival situation.
I meant murder and then cannibalization, my bad for not being clear. I have no ethical qualms really with eating a human or animal corpse in a survival situation, but eating someone who is already a corpse is different than making someone a corpse and then eating them, also last I checked you weren't in a survival situation. If you eat meat when you're stranded on an island with no other food sources, good for you man, but right here, right now, you're surrounded by plant based options which are cheaper and don't incur a obligate cost of life. Keep your hypotheticals and engage with me regarding your real, actual circumstances, rather than random situations which are not likely to ever happen.
>I’m not even going to talk about your last comment. All omnivores are racist? Really?
I don't know what this comment is referencing, I don't recall ever claiming this. My claim is that racism operates on the foundation of Speciesism, not that every omnivore is racist.
>I think it’s safe to assume you don’t hunt/ trap. I’m not big on hunting either. But, do you not fish?
Obviously not, it isn't my place to take another persons life for my entertainment or amusement.
They are killed at a year old after being trucked off to an execution chamber in terror. Where is this decent life you speak of?
I think they were owed 175 billion and there are potentially 200 billion in assets to bw recouped.
HOWEVER it seems as if Goldman Sachs bought a lot of it and was actually the buyer who triggered the 1.8 billion loss that started this run. However I'm having trouble finding more info on that to be honest. It's SEEMS as if they probably made out from this. Which is par for the course with those bastards...
I would assume the assets are actual instances of liquidity they have as assets not the startups they funded right?
Most people are okay with killing animals to eat. Except for me.
It actually can be applied. Our psychology is a real thing and if some action gives us psychological trauma then we can arrive to a conclusion that that action is immoral (like killing animals, hence veganism). Otherwise, logic using our community's mission as a premise can be used. That is how we got antinatalism, for example. Bringing people into this world subjects them to unlimited amounts of suffering and results in their death anyway. Also, there are other people that already exist who we can help to live their life happier, hence antinatalism.
Exposing EliteHave a plan to expose an extremely elitist university but need some help with parts of it. Would anyone be willing to lend a hand?
Being gay is not harmful to anyone, therefore, a bad comparison. We are talking about emotional distress when people see other people harming themselves. A very different thing. Cannot you see that?
I know that in individualistic countries you all have been hearing "my body my choice", but you cannot slap it on every situation where you are involved. Other people exist too and you should take them into account. It is never just you, we all live in communities and our decisions regarding ourselves affect others.
If you value personal freedom to the point of being fine with people doing meth and slowly (or not so slowly) killing themselves (their body their choice and all) then it is fine. We are different though and cannot live with that.
Oh i see. Thank you for enlightening me.
So I should give people the benefit of the doubt when people say "kill all trans people" because surely the doesn't actually really mean "kill" or "all" .... Right? That would be arguing in bad faith if I disagreed with that statement... Right?
It's not just a minority of people with health problems, I'm also talking about the majority of indigenous resistance fighters who certainly are not "vegan". Do you not consider their struggle a left wing struggle? You gonna practice more colonialism by telling them to change their traditional diets? Decolonize your perspective.
My point, If you care to really hear it, is that when people throw this phrase around they are essentially gatekeeping the left (something which we don't need) based on an extremely western philosophical version of ethics and morality (which TBH barely hold up to much scrutiny) and is exclusionary of the practices of many indigenous and first peoples. Which in my opinion is a bad thing. For the left. But ya'll keep patting yourselves on the back for being oh so morally superior.
That is true, but we should always be wary of venerating anyone like that lest we fall into the same trap
Assuming you were healthy and you were being killed within a fraction of your lifespan, are you being genuine in that you wouldn’t care about being killed for unnecessary sensory pleasure?
We can do all that without the brutality though. We don't need to kill animals or eat their products to survive, or to be healthy. We don't need to kill animals to grow plants either.
Live and let live, do what you want as long as you don't cause others harm. This goes for animals too.
If you can be vegetarian, imo there are no ways at all to ethically eat meat. You're choosing to kill an animals because you want to, not because you need to. Imo it's obvious that that just is never ethical, no matter how quick and painless you do it. Imo, unnecessary killing is inherently evil.
So you're actually fine with being killed because someone else wants to eat you...? Mind you this is not 'you die from old age/whatever and someone eats you afterwards', it's literally 'you should die because i want to eat this'.
And usually you won't live a long life either. Even on the best farms cows don't live much older than 5-10 years maximum. Cows can become around 20 years old.
Imagine you getting killed at 35-40. Is that a good life?
> it is not possible to produce animal products without exploitation.
If you trap a rabbit, kill it and then eat it, how is it exploitation? Is a thief robbing you at gunpoint exploiting you? If so you probably have a very broad definition of exploitation that is not really helpful for anarchist discourse.
Antifa is the special needs version of anarchism but ok
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
In todays society I would say a smartphone is a necessity (and probably a laptop). Participating in society would simply not be possible without one (think about work or college etc).
Besides, animal exploitation is inherently unethical. Killing and using animals in never ethical. Production of a smartphone can in theory be ethical.
1/2, communist vegan who viscerally hates other vegans and veganism in general.
Well, specifically I'd say I hate anti-speciesism. The idea that your comrades lives are no more important or valuable than a fucking gnat's is abhorrent and sociopathic imo. And don't give me that, "equally worthy of consideration" bs, it's literally the exact same thing and y'all pretend it isn't
I'm a vegetarian and likely would have been one much sooner had it been more acceptable to be one without having ethical problems with eating meat. I'd rather not get into another debate about this, but not all anarchist moral systems even have the capability to form a moral issue with eating meat, namely egoism.
In the end, what made me decide to switch was realizing that my dietary choices were distressing to some in my community (in real life) and I didn't want to be a cause of distress. Turning it into a moral crusade actively prevented me from reaching this conclusion as, as you can probably imagine, it's hard to be concerned about a group of people when you get replies calling you a psychopath and a fake anarchist every time you say you aren't one of them. I have never and will never find moral issue with eating meat. I don't find "moral" issue with anything, and eating meat doesn't really have any material down sides for an egoist. The only thing that could change my view on the morality of eating meat would be to stop being an egoist and I don't see that happening any time in the next decade.
Rather than trying to build a case for why people should want to be vegan, what appears to be a fairly sizable section of vegans have instead decided to spread a moral doctrine as immutable fact which amounts to one of the very apparitions of the mind that I as an egoist base my critique of hierarchy on in the first place. If you personally dislike the idea of eating animals and protecting them gives your life meaning, good for you. That's healthy and I'll even go out of my way to accommodate that for you. If you want to kick people out of the movement if they don't happen to have the exact same moral framework as you and assuming rational people can't disagree with you and must be compromised as a person and an anarchist is toxic and hurts everyone.
I am genuinely so sick of this discourse. All of this is just childish moral sectarianism. Anarchism is a broad economic and political framework that includes many tendencies and moral frameworks within it. The whole point of decentralization is so that individual moral disagreements don't splinter us into a million different fighting subfactions. If you want a central moral program you want to force other communities to adhere to, you missed the point.
TIL 5 young anarchists were mysteriously killed in Italy in 1970Trying to look this up in English just leads to information on the anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe\_Pinelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Pinelli) (or more specifically, a play written about him) - who I recommend all anarchists learn about.
Basically, 5 young anarchists in Italy died in a car crash on 26 September, 1970. They were:
* Gianni Arico, 22
* Annelise Borth, 18
* Angelo Casile, 20
* Franco Scordo, 18
* Luigi Lo Celso, 26
They were driving to Rome to deliver material to an anti-fascist lawyer around neo-fascism in Italy, notably claiming that they were responsible for derailing a train in Gioia Tauro, killing 6 and injuring 66. Apparently Gianni Arico had told his mother that he had discovered things that "will make Italy tremble". (Some context: Italy had a wave of political tensions and fascist bombings from 1969 to 1980 that killed hundreds, and it was revealed that the fascists were working with Italian and US intelligence agencies - I also believe that they killed the Italian PM but that's getting a bit more conspiratorial).
Their car was hit by a truck, killing Angelo, Franco and Luigi instantly. Annelise and Franco went into a coma and died shortly after. Over the coming months, it was generally accepted to be a car accident. However, anarchists began to notice inconsistencies in the police reports, and it was noted that the documents the anarchists were carrying had vanished, as had their diaries. It also came out that Luigi's father had recieved a phone call from a friend in the "political police" of Rome who told him "It is better that you don't let your son leave".
Anarchists began to investigate the driver and owner of the truck, who were employees of a company run by far-right conspiracy man Junio Borghese ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junio\_Valerio\_Borghese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junio_Valerio_Borghese)) (who had tried to overthrow the Italian government to bring back fascism in December 1970).
With all this information, it began to be believed by some that the anarchists were murdered to stop them blowing the whistle on the link between neo-fascism and the Italian state. Some also argued it was connected to the far-right Greek dictatorship who was supporting the Italian far-right.
Scary stuff.
The article I got this information from: [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchici\_della\_Baracca](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchici_della_Baracca) I used google translate.
A vegan diet is ethical in that it doesnt INHERENTLY require the exploitation of another being. The system in which vegan food (ie plants) is produced can be unethical but it is the PRODUCTION of that food that is unethical. In a perfect world a vegan diet would be 100% ethical but even if capitalism was abolished and farm workers were treated great, the animal being killed for food would not be consenting and thus even in this utopia a non-vegan diet would always be less ethical so long as an animal was being used for its body.
If I were in the exact same relationship with humans as I was with the animals I theoretically would hunt and kill in the sustainable ecosystem I would do so in, yes I would. The thing is, humans are worth keeping around their entire lifespans much more than the average prey animal and cannot nearly as well cope with or handle being hunted or having family members killed etc. it would be similar to say, killing an elephant in their herd or killing a dolphin in their pod, so much more is lost from the world relative to the resources that would provide generally than quintessential prey animals. Even more so for humans which provide great positives to the world by existing in our free environment. Prey animals can generally handle and are in balance with nature when being hunted by predators. This is why the best indicator of a healthy environment is often apex predators. Humans can maximize life in an area by taking up that apex predator role and doing it even more humanely. If you’re okay with non human predators filling their role instead of seeing them as a hierarchy over the animals they eat too and wouldn’t be in favour of getting rid of predators for this reason im not sure why humans fulfilling some of that predatory role is a problem even when suffering is prevented.
"If this video is longer than 10 minutes, please add a 3 to 5 sentence comment **outlining positions taken in the video** and **the reason you posted it**."
## Simply copying the video description does not satisfy this requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It occurred to me there was less text on the flag but my reading of Cyrillic isn't that good, especially when it's this small. But I can make out with some effort
смерть насильникам трудящихся
Which translates to "Death to the rapists of the workers". According to google at least but I assume the translation can vary a bit.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
As an ex-Muslim, I am so happy to see this post. I see westerners shit on mainstream Christianity so much (as they should), but if I say ONE critical thing about my Islamic upbringing..suddenly I’m racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, blah blah blah.
MAINSTREAM Islam is horrific. You only need to see how women are treated across Muslim countries (especially Afghanistan!) to notice. If you want to see more, have a go at the Traditional Muslims subreddit. We *absolutely* should be as critical towards Islam as we are towards Christianity. It is not a better religion. It is a religion that actively subjugates women and calls for the murder of apostates and other minorities, ffs. Progressive Muslims are the only acceptable ones, but they are NOT the majority of Muslims and I want you all to understand that.
Just like radical Christians, a huge swarth of Muslims *want you dead* if you’re a leftist/feminist woman or a member of the LGBTQ+. Stop falling for the trap that Islam is better.
Based BaseballPuerto Rico defeated Israel in the World Baseball Classic breaks the world record in the process and raised the Palestinian flag for solidarity.
I agree. And wonder what you think about what Israel is doing to Palestine? And if you see it as the terrorism it is then throw Judaism in the bunch and let's blame Abraham. I mean he tried to kill his own son? Why are people listening to him? Oh HE SAID GOD TOLD HIM TO?
>I personally consume meat, but I also oppose animal cruelty.
Paying corporations to harm animals runs counter to opposing animal cruelty.
I do think taking life unnecessarily is cruel regardless if it's instigated by a business or not.
Anyone who says it's not the consumer's fault lacks an understanding of supply and demand and how overproduction affects profit.
If the goal is to stop supporting the unnecessary taking of life, it helps to not to give money to those that do.
>Genetically speaking, our bodies are almost indistinguishable from plants and animals.
The presence of the central nervous system is a key distinguishing feature between plants and animals, save for sponges.
>Humans’ contribution to our world is no more valuable than that of invasive weeds.
I agree humans are an invasive species.
>Instead of cutting meat out entirely, we should create a new system that prioritizes ethical, peaceful death for our companions.
I've heard stories that animal liberationist Rod Coronado consumed road kill for a period of time.
A plant based food system would be more ethical, peaceful. Corporations won't support a more ethical vegan food system until consumers change their behavior.
I don't believe in waiting for radical changes to stop supporting oppressive animal exploitation industries.
What does this mean? The ladder looking thing? Found in two spots across from each other
>If not all animals are equal, it’s obviously implied that “don’t torture loving emotional animals” is not the same as “don’t kill mosquitoes”.
Of course! So is there a scientific categorization of which animal goes where?
Because there are animals (like the pubic lice) that it is ok to kill and there are animals (like sheep, pigs, etc) that is not ok to kill.
If not all animals are equal, it’s obviously implied that “don’t torture loving emotional animals” is not the same as “don’t kill mosquitoes”.
Insects have not been proven to experience emotions beyond natural instincts, like avoiding harm and breeding and eating, etc.
Reptiles, birds, and amphibians, have all been shown to have unique emotions, beyond plain instinct. That’s why you can befriend a snake, crocodile, chicken, and probably a frog if it wasn’t so small it thinks you’re a giant moving mountain.
But I assume you don’t want to eat snakes, crocodiles, or frogs, so I don’t really understand why you ask.
Conservatives easing into genocide #oc
Kind Of A Long Shot
Hello comrades. I'm reaching out to you today as I'm kind of out of places to turn. I'm in quite the predicament, I've been taking care my grandmother for the past couple years, and was recently laid off and don't have another job starting for another week and a half. I spread myself pretty thin paying for heat and whatnot and I'm trying to find some help. I need to figure out somewhere in the ballpark of $50 to cover some medications and some food for the rest of the week. We have a big storm coming tonight into tomorrow and possibly the following day and I'm just crazy and over my head. If this isn't the appropriate place feel free to take this down or flame me in the comments. I just don't have anywhere else to go and look for help and I was hoping somebody else in the leftist community might be able to show a little solidarity and throw some help my way.
Biden OKs Alaska oil project
How are you defining consciousness? If it’s simply awareness, than most life is conscious. If it’s the awareness of awareness, a very limited number of life forms have consciousness. I’m not arguing that eating meat and eating plant material are morally equivalent, but that plants should be extended moral consideration because we don’t actually have a very concrete idea of what consciousness is. It is, at present, a subjective term with no functional scientific definition. Personally, I would rather kill a chicken than a 200-year-old oak tree.
How are you defining consciousness? If it’s simply awareness, than most life is conscious. If it’s the awareness of awareness, a very limited number of life forms have consciousness. I’m not arguing that eating meat and eating plant material are morally equivalent, but that plants should be extended moral consideration because we don’t actually have a very concrete idea of what consciousness is. It is, at present, a subjective term with no functional scientific definition. Personally, I would rather kill a chicken than a 200-year-old oak tree.
It's always the children of the white imperialist slave masters that talk the loudest
I'm not going to expend the energy to see what kinda weird armchair activist virtue signaling white people garbage you're into. I hope you have a bad day which seems likely considering how odd a person you are.
Why don't you vegan weirdies get another sub reddit. A lot of anarchist aren't vegan.
Wow another weirdo I'ma eat extra meat just for you homie
Just finished In Defense of Bread as a Neo-Lib Capitalist
TLDR- Book is great at explaining why Capitalism is bad, but terrible at explaining what should replace it.
I call myself Neo-lib capitalist in this context, just to give a general idea of where I am. In truth I think of myself as more of a "whatever works ist" in the sense that I have almost no loyalty whatsoever to any political ideology. My only loyalty is "whatever works best for the time and place we are talking about to ensure material security for the most people and at least an opportunity for material prosperity for as many as possible as well."
That's my main goal and frame of reference for any political or social philosophy/ideology/plan...."does it work though?"
Many moons ago I got into a discussion with some anarchists and basically complained that anarchism did not have a functional model of the world to offer, that anarchists know what they want to tear down, but have nothing functional to replace it with.
As many of you might be thinking, I was accused of being ignorant of Anarchism and told that I needed to go educate myself. I had discussed anarchism several times with people online, and read many of their posts and blogs and whatnot, but had not read any of the foundational texts. So I thought that was a fair criticism.
I asked for a book recommendation, what book would give me the best overall idea not of what anarchism hated, that has always been clear, but of how they picture a functional replacement world working? What is the meat-and potatoes of the world anarchists want to build, in practical on-the-ground reality terms?
The most recommended book was In Defense of Bread. So I finally got around to reading it last week.
Best part of the book by far was his critique of Capitalism, its inherent flaws, the abuses it is intrinsically subject to no matter how good intentions may be, and how exploitation and suffering are innate to the system.
A well spoken, well informed, and insightful chapter or two laying out the problem with capitalism.
But of course this part of Anarchism is where they have always excelled. So this part of the book was very good and compelling, but also I feel it was the easiest lift.
And then it's all downhill from there.
Just an agonizing cascade of ridiculous assertions that had me asking every two pages or so "Has Kropotkin every actually met people?" or maybe more specifically "Has Kropotkin every socialized with the average working class schmoe?" All of his assumptions of human behavior seem to be based on the notion that the entire population is comprised of noble young idealists who live and breathe for "the cause" and would happily structure their wholes lives around it. Or that those who are not so would very quickly begin to act that way as soon as the magical tailwinds of freedom and revolution lifted them.
Utopian? Naively idealistic? It's almost like reading a crappy fan fiction where the entire French Working Class is a badly written Mary Sue.
His insight into the flaws of capitalism is exceeded by lack of insight into how human beings function, especially how they function in times of strife, especially especially how they function in times of lawlessness and disorder, especially especially especially how they function in time of strife and lawlessness and disorder when no obligatory hierarchy or power structure binds them to anything beyond what is personally dictated by a loose sense of fraternal cooperation.
I will give just one example. In his chapter on how food would be secured and distributed following the general uprising, he proposes that the people, organized informally among themselves, would take stock of the food stores of the city, set about doling out the food with neighborhood level organizing, seeing to it that everyone is fairly fed and has what they need, and would then send delegations to the rural farmers to ask what manufactured goods they would be willing to exchange for food, then set the people in the city to manufacturing those goods in order to establish a permanent food source, all without money, not event with bartering as such, entirely based on everyone making what is needed and taking what they need in a big koombaya circle of selfless reciprocity. All without any government or obligatory hierarchy or threat of violence needed.
Is he mad? This is utter fantasy as far as I'm concerned. It's like we aren't even talking about the same species.
It's all very disappointing, and reinforced to an extreme degree my impression that anarchists know what they hate, they know their enemy, but are woefully unequipped to replace it.
And the real disappointment is that I was told I can't judge anarchism by the people online ranting about it, I need to go read the foundational texts by luminaries of the movement.
Well I did, and I can say that this book was only very marginally more insightful than what I'd read before. The real place the book shines, from an academic perspective, is in it's very intense interest in the history of 19th century politics. That was fascinating. But it leads to conclusions no better than what I'd expect from a college Sophomore who just recently got really into Pot and thinks "but like...what if we all just worked together instead of fighting?" is a mind blowing revelation.
Ok so basically:
Anprims: either misanthropic closet ecofash or ultra nihilists suffering from a severe case of capitalist realism or both but yk who they are already I'm sure. The former are accelerationists who unironically desire mass desth, the latter I sympathize with, they should be able to be monke in the woods if they want
Anticiv: partly an umbrella term for anti civ ideologies, partly an ideology (like libertarian socialism). Usually diet primmies who still believe in some use of technology especially agriculture. Nihilistic and dogmatic but slightly less so than primmies. Usually armchairs (leftcoms) for some reason, and possibly the most annoying group of people you will ever meet. Praxis consists of putting their opponents to sleep by monologuing unintelligibly for two hours and larping about cutting le heccin powerlines :DDD
Postciv: More concerned with adapting to collapse as opposed to an actual primitivist ideology, and is I suppose admirable or even somewhat correct in that specific regard. Still kinda delusional though. Mostly modern technology but post-collapse and with decentralized stateless communist ruralism and somehow everyone just agrees not to urbanize or industrialize at all and this society is maintained because everyone is like this solarpunk genius who somehow communicates with people around the world. Imagine everyone as a solarpunk version of Entrapta from She-Ra, and the society they describe sounds like a Ghibli movie ngl. Somehow modern technology is maintained without global supply chains. Very cool setting for an anime, makes no sense irl if you think about it for more than 15 seconds. Also almost completely negligible political presence compared to the other two.
Also I made more than half of that up. Up to you to figure out what part that was 😈
What exactly makes the relationship between predator and prey exploitative?
>you wouldn't advocate for imprisoning and killing animals when we could simply not
Oh right, I forgot that factory farming is the only possible relationship we can have with animals if we're not vegan and that there are absolutely no other possibilities.
And what about all the people who would starve otherwise? The Inuit might not need to rely on hunting to survive anymore, but that's only at the expense of being forcibly integrated into the capitalist system and being dependent on cross-country shipping to get plant protein sources to them in the first place.
>There are definitely ways of killing/eating animals without exploitation
Could you give an example?
Bookchins libertarian municipalism might be a good place to start. Rojava has their own variation of this system called democratic confederalism. Basically society would be organized by a complex system of councils that are organized from the bottom up.
From Rojava to the Zapatista’s, we know that there are many different ways of organizing the world.
If you really consider yourself a “whatever works ist”, consider being anything but a capitalist. Not only is capitalism killing the planet, but it’s forced billions of people around the world into crippling poverty. I just spent the last month in Nicaragua where people on average make 300 a month, never have a day off, struggle to afford food on a daily basis. Why? Because their surplus labor is extracted from them by the capitalist system. For example, banana farmers get only 3 percent of the total capital made by the banana industry because the multinational corporations that own the industry own the entire vertically integrated supply chain. It’s the foundation of capitalism as an economic system: exploitation.
How should we do it differently? Use your imagination. Maybe first off we abolish the class system(thus, fully compensating people for the fruits of their labor) and create a real democracy that’s organized from the bottom up.
Eh it's no big deal. All you have to do is say [REDACTED] and you wink-wink advocate for all the violence you like but no-one can prove for certain that you're actually advocating for violence.
*Folk Devils and Moral Panics* by Stanley Cohen.
I'm reading it for a zine I'm working on that interrogates how valid the "moral panic" idea is: whether it condescendingly casts the public as stupid and panicking, and whether there are better ideas to use for similar social episodes. I have my leanings but still need to do more research!
*Folk Devils and Moral Panics* by Stanley Cohen.
I'm reading it for a zine I'm working on that interrogates how valid the "moral panic" idea is: whether it condescendingly casts the public as stupid and panicking, and whether there are better ideas to use for similar social episodes. I have my leanings but still need to do more research!
Hi u/topflight100sheets - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMO "an"caps should always be in quote marks like so. They are just extra edgy conservatives at best or psychotic neo-feudalists at worst.
It's definitely had visible impacts upon anarchist cultural norms and knowledge bases as so many new anarchists get radicalized through online spaces. If twitter is your only window to anarchist discourse you're gonna get slanted in a liberal direction by default and miss a variety of aspects and corners that are strictly prohibited. See for example "anarchists" falling into fainting chairs upon discovering longstanding anarchist zines with burning schools on the cover.
This also impacts *how* violence is conceptualized by those that support it, so like where discussions about violence might be more productive, strategic, opsec-informed, or ethically nuanced in a more conventional infoshop IRL space, the folks who want to lean into being edgelords in a discord have less of that grounding and are more set in pure *reaction* to the default social media rules and the soft liberalism encouraged by them.
So like eg when I was coming up we shared "dead cop" jokes constantly, but there would have been no question that "killing the families of ISIS members" was a horrific breach of anarchist values.
Smh if you're getting charged with terrorism for a photoshoot then you might as well go all in and start shooting with... something else.
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
Mutual Aid MondayHave a mutual aid project you'd like to promote? In need of some aid yourself? Let us know.
---
^Please ^note ^that ^r/Anarchism ^moderators ^cannot ^individually ^verify ^or ^vet ^mutual ^aid ^requests
You could see how someone might think the opposite? That the argument is simply a rationalization for hurting nonhuman animals, and that it isn't really motivated by a concern for plants? I only seem to hear concern for the question of plant sentience when it's raised in the context of dismissing responsibility toward the suffering of animals. Outside of this usage as a rhetorical deflection, most people seem to accept modern science's model of consciousness as a product of brain activity (other than religious folks or other supporters of cartesian dualism). Because, as others have pointed out, if the idea were genuinely to consider these hypothetical plant-minds, it would only be further reason not to raise and slaughter animals---more plants are killed in the process of feeding livestock than would be by simply eating plants directly.
\>Ethical consumption of anything does not exist under capitalism.
Is all consumption under capitalism equally unethical though?
Is rigging an election through billions in PAC money for a candidate that removes worker rights equally as unethical as a vegan buying an avocado?
\>Unless you exclusively grow your own food and/or forage out of dumpsters, you're exploiting workers just as much as anyone else.
This is not true because of the massive amounts of crops animals are fed to produce edible flesh. In addition to "raising" the animals, other farmers have to grow crops to feed those animals because most people don't eat only crops directly like vegans do.
This process compounds the amount of work necessary to feed people and worker exploitation grows with that.
Worker exploitation does not only exist in the production of plant based foods.
The grow your own food and forage out of dumpsters part is called an appeal to perfection fallacy.
\>Has it not occurred to you that I might oppose one but not the other and see no conflict between them beyond that which is self-imposed?
How does one oppose capitalism by funding a 1.5 trillion dollar industry that reinforces capitalist governments in order to survive?
The whole model of animal exploitation is based on the profit motive.
How does not being vegan oppose capitalism?
\>Why do humans have to receive special condemnation when they eat meat, when every other carnivore and omnivore on the planet gets a free pass?
Animals don't have moral agency. Lions also dispose of other lion cubs and and sniff eachother's rear ends, but not many humans defend these behaviors by saying lions do it. The natural world isn't a good arbiter of moral values.
If a person doesn't want to cause unnecessary suffering to animals, it is their duty to be vegan.
If that's not a part a persons moral framework, then being vegan doesn't matter, and that person does not care about animals.
\>And why don't you oppose animals eating other animals?
They do it for survival, humans have no need to eat animals in order to survive as evidenced by the millions of vegans with better health outcomes than people who eat animals.
\>Why do you think they'd care about human scruples when it all ends up the same way from their perspective?
You're right, to the insects and small animals killed in crop production, it doesn't matter. But those deaths are compounded by animal ag.
By choosing to live vegan, it does not end the same for chickens, pigs, cows, fish, and other animals that are spared and never have to suffer in fear.
My goal is to prevent their suffering through educating people. Not beat other people in internet debates.
\>Again, self-deception. The animals don't care if you harm them "less", because you're still harming them anyway. It's not for them, but for your own guilty conscience.
Guilt is a valuable emotion if it causes a person to do less harm and reflect on their lives. I did experience a significant amount of guilt once I found out how animals were being treated.
Going vegan was not a pleasant process for me in the beginning, I felt terrible I had been contributing to gestation crates and chick maceration.
Having guilt doesn't make a person weak, it makes a person human in the positive sense of the word.
A lot of men conflate psychopathy and consuming animal flesh as a part of a concept of toxic masculinity, it's reinforced through advertising.
[This is a good resource that shows what life is like for animals on farms and why becoming vegan is worthwhile.](https://dontwatch.org/)
I'm a human and get pissed off too.
Apologies if some of my responses were a bit gruff.
I hope you decide to lead an ethical life by being vegan and don't get deceived by animal agriculture industry propaganda and astroturfing campaigns.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you planning to Ted Kaczynski someone?
Don't start altercations with law enforcement. Befriend your neighbours, join some social groups, learn useful skills like gardening, crafts, job skills.
Things that would be useful during periods of political unrest, and require "touching grass"
Not consuming animal products probably kills less ants
Comments where people are explaining why they aren't pacifists may be getting auto-flagged, including one I posted earlier. So, in case it doesn't display, I was a pacifist until I saw what happened to the wh\*\*e nation**ist movement after Rich\*\*d Spen\*\*r got deck'd in front of the whole world, after which everyone wanted to be the next person to publicly deliver him a high-velocity smooch.
I don't like v\*\*lence, I believe that if you're capable of suffering, then you deserve to be free of suffering. But I prefer it happen to one hateful dink rather than thousands or millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives. It's that very same belief that informs my veganism.
Comments where people are explaining why they aren't pacifists may be getting auto-flagged, including one I posted earlier. So, in case it doesn't display, I was a pacifist until I saw what happened to the wh\*\*e nation**ist movement after Rich\*\*d Spen\*\*r got deck'd in front of the whole world, after which everyone wanted to be the next person to publicly deliver him a high-velocity smooch.
I don't like v\*\*lence, I believe that if you're capable of suffering, then you deserve to be free of suffering. But I prefer it happen to one hateful dink rather than thousands or millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives. It's that very same belief that informs my veganism.
Am vegan. Used to be pacifist, until I saw how much damage one sucker punch did to the burgeoning white nationalist movement.
>A kale plant has no wants because it lacks a central nervous system.
And so you've exposed yourself as having the same speciesism you condemn with a different face. You assume that if you can't see how something is possible, then it must not be possible. That is not an explanation, that is argument from incredulity.
The kale plant probably sees no difference in what eats it, that's for sure.
I think this was in Zürich, based off of that RJZ (Revolutionäre Jugendbewegung Zürich) flag
Ignoring whatever John Wick / John Rambo fantasy you're currently living in, no, as the numerically inferior force your best options are to avoid conflict if at all possible in order to conserve your personnel and resources. Running early and running often will give you the greatest likelihood of success.
If you are forced into a defensive position, splitting your manpower as the numerically inferior side is a recipe for disaster. You'll already be at a disadvantage, and whichever group is attacked first will be destroyed while the other group is contained, or as is more likely, destroyed at the same time.
You're not going to win in a stand-up fight with agents of the state because they have the means and ability to just keep throwing increasing numbers of men and ordnance at you. They won't get bored and they won't run out of either. All your i;;-conceived thoughts are going to do is get a lot of people killed, whatever you stand for demonized in the court of public opinion, lead to violent state reprisals against the rest of us, and completely fail to achieve any of your strategic objectives.
Would it actually be a good idea to keep two smaller safehouses in close proximity?Here’s why I think this may be a good idea. When law enforcement agents, whether police, sheriff, state patrol, USMS, or ATF are executing search warrants or searching for fugitives in a building, they stick close together to effectively clear rooms. To counteract this, we could keep two safehouses on the same street or maybe around the corner from one another. This is to have the element of surprise and make a quick counterattack. Let me know your thoughts.
Whats the anarchist perception of the prison system as an institution?
I think this is important to remember, but utopianism is a great tool to keep you going in dark times. we're in hell has a video about it that I really liked. - what are your options?
it's not a diet but a moral stance, and falls 100% under the idea of anarchism. but nice try to change the defnition of veganism so you can cope with your moral hypocrisy
loads of cultures do unethical things and claim it part of their traditions to not face the moral consequence. genital mutilation, child marriages, slavery,... if you're not hunting for survival but 'because it's tradition' you're the same as any right wing burger flipping magascreamer saying his bqq is part of their culture
>Do you know how much animals are hurt while producing vegan food?
How many? Because last time I checked 80% of all crop land is for animal fodder.
​
>Are you aware that we can't survive in this world without hurting animals?
weird because as I am typing this i realize i still haven't died from malnutration
I asked a self-identified anarchist if he thinks the hierarchy of humans being over animals is unjust.
They seem to be more focused on suffering of animals rather than the killing of animals, which isn't particularly where my disagreement lies. I think causing pain and causing death are separate moral considerations. I might check out "Eating Animals" in the future, though, it seems a bit broader in scope and argument (although I recognize that means it might not be as focused).
Lines drawn which separate "Human" from "Animal" are tools which are used to dehumanize people and, therefore, justify their oppression. We've seen it in the past with slavery, and in most genocides. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc all have roots in dehumanization processes grounded in some notion of a human/animal distinction. Heck, it also ties to how we view nature as a whole - non-human and, therefore, ripe for human domination - which highlights the problem with the anthropocene not just being carbon emissions but the fact that it is grounded in anthropocentrism.
[A worthwhile essay on the ideological inseperability between ableism and speciesism.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RokWAuCkVw)
EDIT: Also, to clarify, I am not saying that everyone has to be vegan. Most indigenous people are not vegan but are people who need to be co-conspirators in our de-colonization process. What I am saying is to deconstruct these boundaries so that the question of killing and inflicting pain on animals is not one so easily dismissed through a disconnection with humans, and to construct a reciprocal relationship with humans, nature, and animals. In *Braiding Sweetgrass*, Robin Wall Kimmerer discusses how different indigenous people have a relationship with animal and plant life grounded in reciprocity and viewing each other as equal beings, despite practices of fishing, hunting, trapping, and forestry. Militant vegans miss this point as well, and reproduce colonialism through this. By breaking down barriers we construct community with the natural world, but building barriers and a human/animal distinction necessarily disrupts communities through hierarchy.
Anarchist when they go along the social norm
Natsocs when they go against the social norm and recruit everyone
>many anarchists who aren’t vegan
we've all be brainwashed to the idea that eating animal corpses is tradition, culture, needed for economy and survival and other bullshit and it needs to be unlearned.
and people get suuuuuper defensive when their actions don't align with their morals and exploiting and killing animals is completely opposite to the anarchist idea
so some of the anarchist copium is strong
Good point.
I might use the words non-human animals next time.
Humans don't treat other humans as poorly as non-human animals on the same scale.
Humans kill 80 billion plus non-human animals a year and not as many other human animals.
I don't care about others perception of me as much as being honest. I might have more of a colonialist mindset than a non-vegan, but I am less speciesist.
Why does culture justify non-human animal sacrifice but not human animal sacrifice?
The Azteca are indigenous people.
How is bringing up their indigenous cultural practice of human sacrifice racist?
I'm opposed to historical white cultural practices like slavery too. Is bringing up the white history of slavery racist?
Are you against CRT?
>All life survives only at the cost of other life, and all attempts at harm reduction only pass it off to the forms of life that are less able to communicate that they can suffer.
This is a common assumption that is incorrect for most people living in the developed world.
Animals eat crops and only convert a tiny amount of those crops into protein and calories. By eating animals, it amplifies crop deaths and then kills a complex organism like a cow, chicken, pig, or fish on top of the crop deaths.
There us a utilitarian argument for hunting on the basis of that statement, but in practice, how many people only consume flesh that they hunt or fish?
Any other consumption amplifies harm.
And if a moral framework discerns between intentional and non-intentional killing, then not hunting or fishing is a superior choice.
Many people will look at neatly severed body parts in a grocery store and assume they got there by the same processes as if they were to kill the animal themselves using primitive and ecologically safe methods.
When fishing accounts for 40% of plastic waste in the ocean according to the sources for Seaspiracy.
And cruelty to chickens, cows, and pigs being responsible for the thousands of square miles of dead zones in the gulf as well as the smothering eutriphocation of its tributaries.
>And viewing humans as having a special capacity for cruelty to other animals is its own form of speciesism
I'll have to think about this one, you might be right.
I will say this, animal agriculture is bizarre and grotesque compared to what other species do to one another.
I don't know of any other species that will steal the sperm of a member of another species, forcefully impregnate thousands of others of their kind, then kill thousands of their offspring to eat their dead bodies when their own are maladapted to that consumption (see heart disease and cancer risks of humans that eat flesh and ones that don't or eat less).
Intelligence is what grants us as a species that capacity for depravity that is ignored and scoffed at.
Given the amount of pain forms of human intelligence causes and the self-eradication that is not addressed by those same forms of human intelligences, I find it ironic when a member of our species uses those same traits as a reason why we are superior to our non-human counterparts that lack them.
>How many? Because last time I checked 80% of all crop land is for animal fodder.
Can you check that place again and see what it says the percentage of crop land used for human consumption is? If it did (which I guarantee you it didn't) you'd find it's more than 20%.
Because, you know, when you harvest cereals for humans to eat, you end up with a lot of straw and chaff that's not fit for human consumption. That gets fed to animals.
So if someone were, hypothetically, dedicated enough to animal liberation that they felt it was worth massaging the statistics a little to help the animals, they might list any crops that have byproducts that get fed to animals as 'crop lands for animal fodder'.
​
>weird because as I am typing this i realize i still haven't died from malnutration
And that would be a fair point if you could guarantee that all of the food you've eaten in the last week was produced without *any* animal harm or deaths.
Which you can't, because it absolutely wasn't.
Animals were killed to clear the land on which the plant-based food you eat is grown. Animals were poisoned with pesticides to keep them from reducing the crop yields of the farmers who grew it.
Animals were killed by traps set in the storehouses where that food was stored between harvesting and processing to prevent them from eating it and leaving droppings in it.
Animals were killed by the vehicles that transported your food to that storehouse and from there onwards on every step between harvesting and ending up on your plate.
And I guarantee you that the company that sold you that food is ultimately owned by the same giant agricultural concern that also owns the companies that operate factory farms.
So you're still giving those people money and they're still mass killing animals, even for the products that involve no animal farming at all, and all you've achieved is to put up a lovely little smokescreen between yourself and that fact. One that allows you to believe you're doing the right thing while still benefitting from the mass killing of animals in the end.
Frustration with anarchists and the Eichenfeld massacreRecently I learned of Black Army pogroms of Mennonites in the [Eichenfeld massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichenfeld_massacre). Nestor Makhno had the capacity to stop and prevent pogroms against Jews but didn't do so for Mennonites. I don't think it matters that the Mennonites were landlords and settler colonists in Ukraine, pogroms are not liberating. We have to learn about these atrocities to prevent them from happening again.
But when I asked anarchists on how do we prevent anarchists from doing pogroms I got tankie talking points. I will not link the thread as it's on a different sub. I don't care if you search my post history, whatever.
* One said the rapes didn't happen because it was made up by Nazis after the fact. This is false. Please read the Wikipedia page above and for extra credit the book *Makhno and Memory* which details the atrocity in detail.
* The same person said the Mennonites deserved it because they were Whites (the Russian civil war kind), landlords, and settler colonists. But it's one thing to kill them in battle, and a totally other thing to go house to house to murder the fathers and sons and then rape the wives and daughters.
* Lastly somebody else said to the effect, "well, that's war." Again, killing them in battle is different from fucking massacring them in their homes. Revolutionary violence should have been sufficient to expropriate their estates, their massacre and rape is hardly necessary for the revolution.
So let's get this straight: it didn't happen, but they deserved it, and it's war. Wow.
Anarchists, let's get our shit together. Atrocity denial is Tankie and nazi shit. We should be better than that.
Video explaining Why you should dodge tax!!
I mean factory farming is cruel, for sure, but I find it difficult to see how arguments to be vegan under capitalism don’t fall under the umbrella of “no ethical consumption under capitalism.” Additionally, I find it hard to believe that eating meat is wrong without condemning natural predators in the animal kingdom. And as I’ve thought about this issue more, it just feels a little bit backwards to say that it’s wrong when all animals are going to die eventually, so what difference does it really make if it’s hunted down and eaten by a human vs killed by a natural predator or killed by natural causes? I mean sure you could make an argument about how humans are smarter than natural predators and that we should therefore be capable of higher moral reasoning and blah blah, but I mean realistically, any moral argument to me only makes sense if an action causes unnecessary suffering that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. So as long as you aren’t torturing it, you’re not causing unnecessary suffering or suffering that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. Therefore I see no good moral argument against eating meat.
Lastly, I just wanna add that although this has nothing to do with my general stance about the morality of eating meat, I do think it’s kinda unfair and unrealistic to ask most working class people to go vegan, especially people with mental health issues like myself who are either too busy or too depressed to make their own vegan food at home and find that fast food and junk food are one of their only sources of happiness. Obviously this isn’t a healthy thing to do in the long term, and it’s not ideal, but I feel like putting our energy towards broader political goals is more effective than spending all that energy maintaining a vegan diet. At least if capitalism collapses, we have a chance to stop factory farming altogether, and even if you disagree with me about the morality of eating meat in general, we should still be able to agree that putting an end to factory farming would be an incredibly important step for animal welfare.
ok, so if his hands were raised then how did he get exit wounds in his palms?
but the only evidence to him having his hands up according to the article is exit wounds on his palms. which doesnt make sense.
so is your just making up things that werent in the article considered "big brain"? if he had exit wounds on the back of his hands that would suggest he had his hands raise, but its not presented as the case in the article. you also dont normally surrender palms in
You’re just a cuck for cops. You ever stop to think maybe the exit wounds in the palms indicated he was shot from behind with his hands up, consistent with other exit wounds showing he was shot from behind… or do you just shit post on Reddit about how much boot you like to choke on?
does "animals" include "pubic lice"?
Ever met a farmer who doesn't eat meat? Do you know how much animals are hurt while producing vegan food? Do you know that to grow food you sometimes have to kill some animals (ex. moles)? Are you aware that we can't survive in this world without hurting animals?
ITT non-vegans arguing that plants have feelings, not knowing that waaaay more plants are getting killed to feed animals and other nonsensical arguments.
“Noooo you can’t want to be kind to extremely intelligent and emotional animals!!!! Don’t you understand that would require you to never kill bugs, which show no emotion or feelings besides their pre-programmed code to survive and reproduce!!?? They’re exactly the same thing!!”
Stfu dude. I’m not a vegan, not even a vegetarian, but if you’re going to argue against it at least use reasonable arguments. There’s a reason we divide life beyond simply “animals” and “plants”. The intelligence of a insect is comparable to a plant, they are hardcoded. They haven’t been shown to experience love, or sadness.
Obviously, vegans are not arguing that you can’t kill pubic lice. What a bizarre strawman.
Pubic lice are animals.
The main health conditions pigs, cows, chickens, and fish will cause a human come from consuming their bodies, conditions like heart disease and cancer.
The cows, chickens, pigs, and fish people pay to be killed are not actively harming them like public lice would be.
A person can still be considered vegan if they remove pubic lice or take a medication that has no viable alternative that contains animal products.
Being vegan isn't about being perfect, it's about causing the least amount of harm to animals that's practicable and rejecting their status as commodities.
does "animals" include "pubic lice"?
I wouldn't know. It's not my place to make that sort of accusation.
I'm just stating facts. Anarchism addresses relationships between people, that is the whole entire point of Anarchism.
I keep saying that they're free to associate or disassociate with whoever. That they can include non-human animals if they so choose, I don't care as long as they're not capitalists or fascists, but trying to claim that only vegans can be anarchists is *deeply and fundamentally incorrect*, and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that.
LOL I'm bi, sweetie. What I find odd, is you thinking I eat the fish because I'm "othering" it.
Anyway, carry on. Have fun storming the castle...err, I mean, keeping the gate.
>Hmm, you'd think anarchists would be more open-minded to the plights of the oppressed and their voices.
Like I said:
Let me know when my pigs and chickens start voting and demanding fair wages.
I can understand the oppression done to humans by humans by understanding the relationships between humans.
Do you honestly believe I'd understand human relationships better by considering my relationship to the fish I caught for supper?
LOL sorry, but no
Lines drawn which separate "Human" from "Human" are tools which are used to dehumanize people and, therefore, justify their oppression.
Fixed it for ya.
Anarchism is for people. You are free to include things that are *not* people, but im not obligated to toe *your* line in that regard, sorry.
Let me know when my pigs and chickens start voting or demanding fair wages. Until then, keep your own gate, okay, thanks.
The hierarchies that anarchists are concerned with are the hierarchies between *human beings*. Our relationships with each other, our labor, and our property.
It has *nothing* to do with pigs and chickens. Nothing. Unless you, as an *individual*, make it so. In which case, it is not the responsibility of other anarchists to toe *your* line.
I think animals are worth moral consideration because they want to live just like us.
The systems of hierarchy that support animal oppression also support human oppression like environmental racism and general corporate ecocide.
I believe human rights activism is equally as valid as animal rights activism. I protest with leftist groups in addition to doing vegan outreach like this.
It's possible to do human and animal rights activism. Both forms of activism support one another.
However, I won't fault a human rights activist for focusing exclusively on human rights issues, especially on issues like police violence against marginalized communities.
To fault an animal rights activist for focusing exclusively on animal rights activism fails to give consideration to the fact that 80 billion plus land animals are killed unnecessarily each year and virtually every one of them was an individual who wanted to live.
[dontwatch.org](https://dontwatch.org)
Also, isn't believing that human beings are above animals and they have the ethical responsibility to protect animal rights at any cost means belief in a hierarchy in on itself?
Like if someone believes that human beings should not even hunt animals for food and protect their rights, doesn't that imply that they believe human beings are masters of the earth and all other creatures derive these rights from us?
Don't get me wrong, I am against the evils of the industrial farming and animal husbandry and what not, and we should take responsibility for their actions in environmental degradation, but going as far as saying human beings shouldn't kill any animal at any circumstance unlike other species carries implication that we are some kind of special species who are above other creatures, atleast to me.
> Could any pattern of behavior be considered a hierarchy?
You might still need to rephrase your question.
Put very concisely - I would define hierarchies as stratified layers of authority. And authority as power over/to control others. I don't think that just any old "pattern of behaviour" fits. And before you draw a parallel between human hierarchies and the food chain, I'd say that's a false equivilance because humans have a choice.
States maintain power by holding monopoly on violence (via military and police organisations), and by defining (and enforcing) through legislature what *counts* as violence, what counts as *legitimate* violence (usually the kind the state allows itself to use), and what counts as *illegitimate* violence.
Here's a relevant quote from [this vid by Andrewism](https://youtu.be/YnYdMijXc_E), around 2mins in:
> Violence is a pretty ambiguous concept, and very easy to manipulate, especially in the hands of the media and the State. It's vague to the point of uselessness, because people are just gonna keep bending and twisting it however they want to morally justify or condemn the actions they have already decided are acceptable or unacceptable.
> Violence is a category that we choose to place or not place on a variety of actions and situations. We don't count driving a car as violence, even though it kills nearly 1.5 million people every year. Structural harm, the one condoned and upheld by the State, goes unnoticed every day. Blood oils this machine, yet violence is a euphemism for things that threaten the ruling class and their illusion of peace, a peace that obscures class struggle, patriarchy, colonialism, evictions, hunger, and police brutality. Striking workers and tenants are violent, cops and landlords aren't. And so it goes.
Idk how convincing you find that. But if it makes sense to you, now consider - what even *is* 'justice' within this system?
Well, personally I just can't treat animals as equals. For example I wouldn't want to host in my body pubic lice just to protect it from extinction.
You certainly don’t need to host pubic lice to stop exploiting animals. Defending yourself is not the same thing as killing a pig because you like the taste of their flesh or imprisoning a elephant in a zoo because you want to look at them.
Thanks for such a detailed, respectful, and informative response! I appreciate the compliments.
I'm curious to learn more about anarchism. I do think there's a lot of overlap between animal rights/veganism and anarchism.
I agree gatekeeping is not good for any movement. That's why I think it's good to do outreach with people of any culture, including indigenous ones.
I do know indigenous people who are vegan like Soytheist on YouTube.
Animal rights activism does offend people. I'm sure there are people that have been offended by anarchist direct action as well.
In both scenarios, I think the person most likely to be offended is the one in the position of power.
I can't fault an indigenous or religious person who hunts for survival and has no other options.
I don't think culture is an excuse for harming animals unnecessarily.
Not many apply the logic that cultural or indigenous status automatically exempts a practice from being considered abusive, like with female genital mutilation, child marriage, or human sacrifice, which are all cultural and religious practices that have been practiced by indigenous peoples at some point or even today.
Most of us recognize those as wrong because they cause unnecessary pain an suffering to human beings. We realize those practices can't be defended merely on the basis of them being cultural or religious since those practices create victims.
Yet not many will apply that logic to animals who are caused unnecessary pain and suffering because of speciesism.
Some will claim they are speaking out against colonization when a vegan says culture is no excuse for abuse in regards to killing animals for
They misperceive the labeling of a cultural or religious practice as unnecessarily harmful as racism or an attempt at colonization.
Even an oppressed indigenous or religious person has greater power over an animal than the person criticizing the unnecessary harm they are about to cause.
I've seen a protest of a Jewish ceremony where they cut the throats of chickens.
I think protests like that are good because they are attemptimg to protect someone who has less power (the chicken) than the religious people oppressing them.
I have a vegan friend who is Jewish. I'm 99% sure she would actively protest the same religious ceremony if given a chance.
It's only when a vegan selectively protests certain cultures or religions where I think there's any merit to the claim they might be racist and or attempting colonization.
I will target multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporation with *direct action before a reservation because corporations cause more harm than indigenous people do and the places where corporations abuse animals are everywhere.
I agree patience and politeness are generally good, especially considering most people don't know how badly animals are treated.
[dontwatch.org](https://dontwatch.org) has a 7 minute video that exposes routine practices the corporations that abuse animals don't want anyone to see and a resource page for assistance on becoming vegan.
>While purchasing their vegan options might encourage them to expand that selection, my feeling is that any money spent there, regardless of the purchase, simply helps support their apparatus.
I agree buying food from TB expands an animal cruelty apparatus since that is most of their products. I think buying vegan food there is better than not because the non-vegan foods will have to be resupplied which causes animals to be harmed in slaughterhouses and on farms.
I've started eating at TB less. Fast food is also expensive and less nutritious.
If someone so pressed for time they can't prepare a meal that's cheaper and healthier at home, like a tofu scramble or tvp, rice, and bean burrito, Taco Bell is a good alternative to McDonald's if the opportunity exists.
The bean burrito with no cheese, add potatoes is under 3 dollars, a black bean crunchwrap, no cheese, no sour cream, add potatoes is around 5.
Where I'm at, those have more protein and calories than vegan options at McDonalds which are the apple pies, plain salad, and drinks.
Buying the vegan option supports animal cruelty less than the non-vegan option, and I think they are cheaper, so there's less money going in.
Once again, thanks for the compliments and watching the video!
Could've been shot from multiple directions. Ultimately we'll see the details Monday.
Anarchy resources for the laymanI am not an academic and barely literate, I would describe myself as a layman. Being new to anarchy what resources would you recommend I sink my teeth into? I want to learn about possible, feasible 'new world' concepts. Concepts that are well thought out of what and how a better world could look like for us all. It's great pointing out all these things wrong about current society etc, but what resources out there can teach us how to logically 'get out of it by doing xyz', and 'this is how it would look like' etc?
I don't like Steam so muchI don't like steam at all because it forces us to only play demat games, plus they are forcing with their skins and everything. It's a big corpo that don't care anymore about players.
Yet they are the main group developping Linux gaming and that's really annoying.
Moody's gave Silicon Valley bank an A rating until its collapse
I have been called an antisemite countless times for denouncing zionism, but what people don't understand is that zionists have weaved their political ideology into the the identity of Jews by using religion.
Being jewish is a LOT different than being a person who dehumanizes/demonizes Palestinians, steal their lands and property, puts them in prisons and just outright kills them and their kids.
You're right, their genocidal tactics are straight out of Nazi Germany, I just find it SO rich how the people of Israel don't see the hypocrisy of their government's actions.
Are there any anarchist groupings in Southern California? Specifically in the Inland Empire
Ex cops have stated they are taught to assume everyone wants to kill them. They are programed to kill for their own safety, even if no threat was present.
That and it could've been a political assassination
It's because so many people haven't had a negative interaction. Cops target people on the fringe and minorities because there are fewer repercussions, and they are cowards.
If you want to turn people away from a pro police stance, ask them how many times in their life a cop helped them versus hindered them. Very few people have had a good experience shouting ACAB at them and identifying them as the tools of state violence doesn't win hearts and minds to the fuck the popice cause.
The fuck the police movement might as well be a god damn psyop at this point with how effectively it has radicallized both sides of the arguement for law enforcement. These absolute statements that cops are murderers stop a lot of people from applying reason and fact and instead force them to pick a side.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of people land on the safe and easy side that doesnt involve being shot by a fucking jackbooted ass clown who is justified to kill a human because they live in perpetual fear of the boogeyman they created.
Autopsy reveals anti-'Cop City' activist's hands were raised when shot and killed
Like op said. Plus they was likely seated, cross legged. The theory that they fired on police first is being questioned as friendly fire could be the culprit.
This has happened before with the MOVE-9. Police were given the all clear to shoot on MOVE after a police office was shot by them. It was later found impossible for MOVE to have hit them given the fact they were in the basement and the exit wound was from a downward angle. From the back. Police denied it was friendly fire.
Because the cops are killing the “right” people in their minds.
It's absolutely wild to conflate my participation in this system (which i don't have a choice in) with the active perpetuation of abuse that the system itself enacts.
I literally said in my first comment that I would happily eat vegan if I had the opportunity to do so in a way that wouldn't cause me to lose an unhealthy amount of weight. I'd love to do food prep to make rice, beans, and veggies into healthy, palatable meals, but hey,, guess what,, that takes a lot of extra effort. Effort that's currently going toward looking for a job, dealing with hygiene, and attempting to have some semblance of a social life so that I don't fucking kill myself.
But you clearly have no concept of how much effort that takes for a neurodivergent person experiencing depression. Or maybe you do, and you just don't care.
Look. We're on the same side here. I also want the liberation of all human and non human animals. I never even said that "veganism is wrong." I'd just like to be treated like a person, with some level of empathy for, and understanding of, my situation. The revolution hasn't happened yet, and until it does, people's situations will be less than ideal.
That's the material reality of this world.
Because the truth can be the hardest for us to understand
It's the hardest for a single person to comprehend
When it's things that happen to the people and we don't know why
When it's bad things that happen to the people who we're calling the good guys
Then the truth can be the scariest of truths out there by far
And that is the cops could kill YOU no matter who you are
And that is a truth that just does not seem right
We'd rather tell ourselves a lie so we can sleep at night
And that is the lie we'd say to get us through the day
Because the truth is that we are all nothing more than prey
Notice of Conscientious ObjectionWhat follows is my personal account and attempt at conscientious objection.
Conscientious objections made clear and in many numbers are needed, when we have a mouth for war, Washington listens. Find your friends of fighting age, no matter their gender identifications and make sure that they're hearing all the sabres rattling and show them where the sheath is, because it's an equal opportunity military, and death is it's objective, so cold and kinesthetic.
My father, who rode about on doomsday submarines in the pacific, those waters not only cold in temperature, but cold in war, ready to push the button, should the war hawks deem that their fellow humans are merely varmint prey, only fit to be eliminated. Needless to say, those same submarines are still trolling those seas. He ignored our paternal lineage which has been largely pacifistic dating back to the late 17th century. In rejection of my fathers nuclear legacy, I stand ready not for war in the east, but to ideologically resist any attempts at forced conscription and firmly entrench myself amongst the victims and the innocent, who would have no part in killing those of the same qualities.
A seed of anarchy has been planted in my brain, a seed that I haven't well watered or fed, yet grew anyway. Perhaps the essence of a great uncle who died in the Haymarket riots, refused to stay beneath those icy waters in which he drowned. Perhaps the spoken and literary works of battle hardened veterans, made remorseful for atrocities wrought by their hands, perked me up to listen. Perhaps as I witnessed their post traumatic tremors while deep in the throes of hallucinogenic therapy, truly moved me.
Perhaps those who resisted as Thoraue did, when Ralph Waldo Emerson came to bail him out of prison for conscientious objection, said to him, "What are you doing in there?" and he replied, "What are you doing out there?", inspired me in a way that truly makes the military industrial complex, fucking nervous. Perhaps it was the big-6, who despite already experiencing such great violence, resisted anyway. That great fighting man Muhammed Ali said, “My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America,”,
Because nothing intimidates the men of violent virtues more, than a strong people united against their nihilistic cause. A people who won't pick up their machinations to die for what; a stock market bump? That same market synonymous to the destruction of our planet? I believe in the country, not the nation. A country of beautiful bounty, of redwood and maple, of purple mountains majesty and of Yellowstone beauty. Not a nation of abstract law geared towards white supremacy.
No, I am not a pacifist like my forefathers, not a dogmatic Mennonite fleeing the catholic church of 17th century Europe and seeking peach orchards in Pennsylvania, not ill informed of the control devices written in those King James passages. Not ignorant to time and labor reifying our natural resources and natural selves into artificial machinations. Not just another privileged white, looking to cash in on the color of my skin and Ivy league pretenses. I am something different, a stick in the spokes between the wheels of war that ever turn and turn, and if the wagon is slowed, us oxen stopped, watered and fed, perhaps this journey west, now splashing back on the world, like a tsunami of arms and munitions, could end.
I am finished with the violent fantasies of presidents and cabinets. I declare myself an anarcho-pantheist. That God expresses itself in the material universe, and what could be a greater crime against divinity, than our atoms being torn apart in the heat of nuclear winds? The purported moralities they will attempt to hold against us are merely projections of the guilty parties. That the blood they'll spill is in accordance with that violent, patriarchal god to which they pray. That is not the God to which I pray, but to the kindness in the eyes of women of every denomination as they watch us misapprehend so many good things and as Aristotle said, "Anybody can become angry- that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy."
"Not easy.", indeed. Hard times are ahead, I say, so have your letters of conscientious objection ready and be prepared to stand by them, no matter the horrors we may face. Have your virtues ready, for I have not many, but you, you glorious manifestation of humanity, are many, and do.
Voting is a spook
Calling cops pigs is a spook
Homework is a spook
Capitalism is a spook
The March 31 demonstrations are a spook
All authority is a spook
Modern anthropological books are a spook
The right wing fascist movement in Arkansas is a spook
Ancaps, fake news, and education are all spooks
Naming ideologies after people is a spook
Printing magazine covers is a spook
Street art is a spook
The Sri Lankan state strike ban is a spook
Everything is a spook. Illusions of people’s minds
Weekly open discussion threads are a spook
Palestinians are semites too, standing with palestine cannot be anti Semitic at all
1797, denoting the major language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc., distinguished by triliteral verbal roots and vowel inflection; 1826 as "of or pertaining to Semites," from Medieval Latin Semiticus (source of Spanish semitico, French semitique, German semitisch), from Semita (see Semite).
As a noun, as the name of a linguistic family, from 1813. In non-linguistic use, it is perhaps directly from German semitisch. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so delimited.
History how does it work? Typically by reading
Sorry bud your wrong here. Didn't just pull this out my ass
CrimethInc.
Bakunin Proudhon Kropotkin Zinn Chomsky Vidal Goldman
Learn a trade or a skill that is cheap enough to study and useful for society now and after the revolution. For example TIG welder, carpenter, electrician, sheepshearer, landscaper, treesurgeon, dogtrainer, musician, animator etc. In many cases you can be self employed. Live in a van or a boat or a commune to avoid debt-traps. Make enough money in 6 months to sustain you through the year. Live close to nature and to the working class. Organize, agitate, educate wherever you are. Plan your activism as long vacations. Enjoy your life.
Honestly, fuck those people. Trying to bring them along is just sacrificing the people they oppress for some sick, performative "unity."
If you're one of the good ones, move to a city and don't be a fuckface or deal with it yourself. Otherwise, you're just perpetuating the idea that the urban minorities and queer people rednecks terrorize are obligated to spend their minute resources needed to fix the existential issues in their communities that hicks in the sticks *created.* Created solely for their sadistic pleasure. Even worse, it perpetuates the racist idea that colonized people are somehow morally inferior for having no interest in friendship or community with people who despise us whether they admit it or not.
The whole project of trying to force people suffering from white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy to play fucking patty-cake with our oppressors disgusts me. Not everyone is or should be an ally, and we have every right to never want to hear some hayseed's nonsense ever in our fucking lives. They had their chance to act like people. Trying to force the oppressed into community with their oppressors isn't okay, and I see way too much of it in left circles.
Imo, leave these people to their fate. Whatever they're going through, the people responsible are in their back yard. Let them deal with it instead of expecting urban minorities to sacrifice for the scum of the Earth. God will know his own.
This right here, ladies and gentlemen, is a huge reason why rural communities lean right to begin with and don’t bother entertaining outside ideas. Urban leftist keyboard warriors such as our friend u/Helpful_Insurance_99 here are quick to condemn rural communities as unredeemable hellholes as they type away on their little laptops in their shoebox apartments in their gentrified neighborhoods. You couldn’t hang with anybody remotely working class if your life depended on it. You have no clue what it’s like to work an honest job. You’re part of the problem. Put your Chipotle delivery down and go touch some grass, being outside might actually give you some perspective on this issue.
Autopsy reveals anti-'Cop City' activist's hands were raised when shot and killed
Semite (n.)
1847, "a Jew, Arab, Assyrian, or Aramaean" (an apparently isolated use from 1797 refers to the Semitic language group), back-formation from Semitic or else from French Sémite (1845), from Modern Latin Semita, from Late Latin Sem, Greek Sēm "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Genesis x.21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites in Bible-based anthropology, from Hebrew Shem. In this modern sense it is said to have been introduced by German historian August Schlözer in 1781.
Rip idi amin 😢
Are there laws under anarchy?Hello i am someone who is interested to learn more about anarchism , the google definition of it is : Anarchy is a society without a government. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy. Anarchy was first used in English in 1539, meaning "an absence of government". Does that also mean there are no laws ? I have seen anarchist call cops pigs and have negative stance against them, does that also mean that law enforcers wont exist under anarchy? Or is anarchy against the corruption of state n law enforcers rather than the existence of them? Pardon my ignorance on the subject by the way
Does HE know????
Nope, far too tasty.
Goodness me, who would have guessed.Police, killing unarmed civilians? Who would have guessed?
11/3/2014 Berkin Elvan was shot by police. We never forget, never forgive
Hi u/Maksi_Reddit - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it‘s a much more unconscious change. If you repeat something often enough it does affect your beliefs, and constantly devalueing pigs with your language will eventually change your thoughts about them (which is not even that necessary because even as children, we learn that pigs are unclean, disgusting, dumb etc - thats why theres sayings such as „eat like a pig“ or „sweat like a pig“), which also affects how worthy we see them of life and of including in our struggle etc etc
Hell yeah, thanks for sharing this!
But the social attitude towards pigs still goes against their interests as they're abused, tortured and killed on the regular.
Perhaps the lives of others are more important than your sensory issues?
No, I'm not being ableist. Don't get it twisted, your sensory issues are real and important, but they are not more important than the lives of others.
[Speciesism is a bigotry like any other. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1157wvv/comment/j94ivug/?context=3)
To put your dietary needs over the life of an animal is to assert that your difficulties are more important than their lives, this is speciest supremacism in action.
>It’s not cognitive dissonance it’s science.
No, it isn't, your comment is full of misinformation.
>Human beings are omnivorous, meaning in order to efficiently obtain the nutrients we need to survive, we evolved to consume both plant and animal products.
That is not what omnivorous means. Omnivores are **capable** of digesting plants and meats, it is not a guideline regarding what is healthy. Speaking of which, meat is a carcinogen.
>Eating meat is not the issue, it’s the factory farming that’s causing the problem, and yet it remains the most efficient way to produce the quantity demanded.
It is the issue. Yes, capitalism has accelerated the amount of meat we make and yes capitalism is **a part ** of the problem, but the real core of the problem is speciecism. When did you become convinced that other sentient beings were your property? Why do you get a right to your body but you don't afford such liberties to non humans? Speciecism is supremacist and hierarchical, it goes against everything that anarchism stands for.
>You clearly know what cognitive dissonance means and can use it in the proper context
Being non hierarchical right up until you get hungrier and then justifying your oppressive actions with "they're just animals" is cognitive dissonance. You cannot be both anti hierarchy and non vegan.
>And it would take at least a couple million years for humans to evolve to where we can survive solely of of plants.
Obviously just wrong by every available metric, the science is in on veganism, every study shows its healthier than eating animal products.
Oh and by the way, carnism is killing the planet and is entirely unsustainable. Crop failures due to climate change will make animal agriculture completely infeasible except for the richest people.
Grow up man, both the science and ethics are on the side of veganism. Your own comrades are telling you that subjugating animals is hierarchical and unethical, take a hint eh?
If the condition of your life continuing is that others will suffer and you don't care, you're an unfeeling supremacist and you ain't getting my sympathy.
I care about the lives of animals more than any persons sensory issues, this is because I am not a supremacist.
People are starving in the streets. I'd kill a hundred cows if it means feeding one of them.
Can anyone send me a riseup.net mail invite code? Thank you
Do you vote?
On Authority
Only because I have to.
I can only engage in harm reduction until true organization happens, which I try to do every day.
I was on this kick during Obama's presidency with not voting, which I got through two cycles until Trump got into office.
My best friend had to do a shotgun marriage (her partner was undocumented at the time) to ensure he stayed in the US.
Maybe my vote wouldn't have mattered as much in GA, statistically speaking.
But I felt so guilty that I am now voting in every election, even when I don't want to, to do some part in this twisted game.
She told me not to worry about it and that she was going to get married to him no way, but that didn't make me feel better because I felt like I could have done more instead of taking ideological stances.
I seek to be an anarchist, not an armchair philosopher.
When I can do something, I should do it.
Well you could punch a billionaire. Dressed up in an arsenal jersey of course, as cover that you're a footie hooligan.
I think that's a good argument to correct someone who says "kill it with fire" when they see a spider; I doubt calling cops 'pigs' makes us less empathetic to pigs. It's easy enough to separate the two in this case.
Cops are crocodiles unientelegent cold blooded and specialized for murder
fight capitalism?How to fight capitalism?
Particularly if you live in the UK.
Neither is a slur because both are ideologies. Liberalism is an ideology. Fascism is an ideology and existential threat. I am very very confused. Go outside. Touch grass.
Reading comprehension fail.
Before tossing out mindless slurs, maybe look at my other posts on this thread? But just in case your attention span is as limited as your vocabulary, let me be explicit: cops are our enemies. They are scum, mostly because every day they choose to reinforce the domination and exploitation we suffer under in capitalism. Their jobs are to hurt people, pure and simple, which makes them dangerous bullies. They are happy to fuck with people who can't fight back, and then panic when faced with physical resistance (take a look at that hilarious video from the Atlanta forest defenders if you want a good chuckle or two). There's no way to accept cops in any anarchist future. All cops are Derek Chauvin. They should all rot in hell.
Hi u/9livescavingcontessa - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to be very obedient and rule following, I am autistic so this can seem logical to me. Then as time went on I saw how inconsistent, hypocritical and useless many rules were.
However, in part due to my autism, how it manifests for me personally, I was unable to form an alternative view point with any real structure. So I had a total meltdown and loss of sense of self. I was not diagnosed until very recently but always knew there was something different or 'off' about me. I just couldn't follow rules or do things the 'right' way no matter how much I even tried. If I didn't totally and completely agree with them and want to do them as well, I can't follow rules. It makes life quite rough - from not being able to complete assignments because the question is stupid (and I mean being unable to make myself write even a bit of crap to please the teacher) through to being totally mystified at police and judicial systems...rules suck. However...rules like, traffic laws, or respect for others, I for the most part follow and agree with. They are mutually beneficial, they make sense.
I thought for a long time I was a failure. that I was the only one seeing 'this'. At first I thought ok communism has to be better, then it must be socialism...then I became nihilistic and sort of collapsed under the weight of ....all of this situation we're all in.
Over the pandemic I began to learn what Anarchism actually means and it was the one approach've found that made sense and is logically consistent, so far. It respects people's dignity, right to be themselves and reflects the mutually dependent reality of all of us together. It was like finding, finally, a philosophy and practise that reflected all of the shit I've been ranting about since I was 11.
Hierarchy totally fell over for me when trying to understand my oldest child's refusal to cooperate even on a basic thing, I got really angry and upset and said 'IF YOU JUST OBEYED THIS WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST OBEY FOR ONCE?" This was an awful, ridiculous and absurd thing to say as up to that point obedience had not been a framework of our relationship, it was for me with my zealot christian parents however. She laughed in my face, quite rightly. I recognised the fierce spirit of freedom in her, and ... freed myself of a lot of shit in the coming weeks.
[Content Warning]
>dairy
https://youtu.be/Z8TONpvepzg
>eggs
https://youtu.be/t_u0jxi_v-w
All animal products are taken from animals without their permission.
[Content Warning]
>dairy
https://youtu.be/Z8TONpvepzg
>eggs
https://youtu.be/t_u0jxi_v-w
All animal products are taken from animals without their permission.
Are you a liberal or something? OP’s point was that cops deserve worse than pigs for being willing defenders of capitalism. These bastards kill, rape, and beat my people day in and day out. To call them “not our friends” is a massive understatement and softens how we should feel about them. They are more than “not our friends”. They’re fascists. A direct threat. The enemy. Not that we should hunt them for sport or anything but if a cop dies in the line of duty, I won’t hesitate to cheer. These humans sure snuffed the life out of a lot of humans because they thought it was fun and they won’t hesitate to make you their next victim if they see enough joy into turning your insides to applesauce.
Another reason to quit this nonsense is that it's crude dehumanization. Don't get me wrong; cops should never be considered our friends. But they are still members of the human family, as are militarists, religious fanatics, stalinists, and their admirers. They may be scum, but they are human scum.
>There are people who refuse to eat onions because they believe it causes lust. That is an ethical choice
Superstitions are not a framework for ethics, especially not superstitions about sexuality.
Ethics/morality isn't "what people do".
There seems to be a common misconception that a culture determines their framework of ethics and that makes that framework of ethics valid, but that's not the case. A culture choosing to kill and eat animals does not validate the ethics of eating animals for members of that culture.
Late to the thread, but this is true. If you're serious about it, you're serious about it. It has been three years since I first went vegan, with a short period where I ate animal products because I had a psychotic episode (Schizophrenia), but after I came back to reality I stopped eating animal products again.
It's just something that clicks in your brain, and after it clicks it's really hard to deny it.
Dehumanizing groups of people is nothing, anarchists should be proud of.
Cops aren't bastards nor pigs, but just people and sometimes assholes.
Hi u/edalcol - Unfortunately your submission has been removed.
So-called "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists - anarchism and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible concepts. As such, discussion of "an"caps or their ideology are not an appropriate topic for this subreddit.
Don't just take our word for it though. Here's the so-called "father" of their ideology:
> *We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.*
> —Murray Rothbard
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi u/edalcol - Unfortunately your submission has been removed.
So-called "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists - anarchism and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible concepts. As such, discussion of "an"caps or their ideology are not an appropriate topic for this subreddit.
Don't just take our word for it though. Here's the so-called "father" of their ideology:
> *We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.*
> —Murray Rothbard
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
About ancaps, fake news and educationHey all! I'm new in this subreddit, this is my first post here, so I apologize in advance for bringing up such an upsetting topic or if my question is too silly... I hope this is a good place to have this discussion and I appreciate the patience.
I have long given up expecting that anyone is consistent in their views and basically ignored ancaps for many years. But as I watch the pipeline of radicalization into the far-right operate stronger and stronger, this topic has started to bug me again. I've been thinking a lot about the topics of education and formation of critical consciousness lately.
I'm from Brazil, and even though we had a massive win against fascism recently when Lula won the 2022 elections against Bolsonaro, it was a very short call, and the far-right keeps winning the digital misinformation battle. Sadly, I don't think the issue is about access to correct information, but rather, what kind of information seduces some people. I believe that, just as we have some sort of inherent thing against authority, some people have a thing *for* it. And the information we all consume is determined by things like that, the fact they are factual or not being of little relevance.
So starting from that hypothesis, I'm trying to find out what are the things that me and people whose views I usually despise can converge. And then, give up trying to educate people on the topics that we disagree, and just use those convergences in order to seduce them, basically. Then, any education is left for a moment after I'm already considered a trusted agent. My hope is to get less people seduced by far-right agents. For the record, my observation is that this is the method that the far-right currently uses, and, very unfortunately, I find it brilliant. They are very good at getting people who are very different from each other to converge on their shitty views.
What is your general view on this topic? And taking ancaps as example, do you think that everything that seduces them comes from capitalism? Or is there anything at all about actual anarchism that does appeal to them?
Owners do.
They didn't create a single sándwich on the left-hand side.
They fund it perhaps (sometimes not at all) but they expect a return on profit.
They are, from what I can see, parasites in a semi-literal sense.
Yup. Formerly houseless myself. I would say capitalism is trying to kill you tho. Just threatening you with the ultimatum: produce or die.
I actually have an exact moment.
When I was in tenth grade, I got jumped by four other guys. I used my backpack as a shield , crouched down behind it, and curled into a ball to avoid getting my teeth kicked in.
Later, we all get dragged to the dean of boys office, and I took three swats for "fighting" right next to the guys who attacked me.
All of them were significantly larger than me on top of outnumbering and ambushing me.
The entire time, the Dean took special time to explain to me that I shouldn't have defended myself, that was still "fighting". Even though I was cornered between a set of lockers and couldn't get out.
I'd seen cops come out and laugh at my mom who'd just been beat up by her boyfriend, I'd even had a few run-ins with local cops flexing their muscles over kids being too loud or rowdy in our apartment complex, but that day was the exact moment I knew that people in charge didn't give a shit about anything but The Rules.
There are people fighting this. Posted just in case parties here want to join.
lol @ tankies & corpos
Georges Seurat appreciation post
From the propaganda posters sub, anarchy is not such a far fetched concept :)
My mom claims that I punched my principal in the face when I was 9 years old. I don't personally remember it, but I think that was around the age that it started. I developed a strong sense of independence and self-actualization, I didn't like the idea of being told I couldn't do something if it didn't make sense, and I also hated being told what to do.
It didn't help that I lived in a region that was largely abusive and controlling to children.
I think I got it from being around so many people that were power tripping and treating people unfairly. I recognized it even at a fairly young age. At some point I just didn't accept anyone's "authority".
Capitalism tried to kill me.I spent 6 years without a home. Sometimes people let me stay with them, sometimes I had nowhere, sometimes I stayed in shelters. It was the roughest time in my life thus far, and I developed pretty bad PTSD because of it. I was having a panic attack the other day so I called my mom so I would have someone to mentally anchor myself to, and I started talking about how awful my treatment was while I was homeless, and I realized that Capitalism as a system would have gladly killed me had I remained homeless. I knew many people on the streets that are now dead or missing. God, so many people just go missing and no one ever asks any questions. They just vanish. I have friends where you can go on their Facebook accounts and it's just friends and family posting asking if anyone knows where they are. Some of them have been missing for years.
Once you have no wealth, you are no longer an asset to the Capitalist system, and it will grind you into a paste by means of deprivation and alienation. I may still be alive physically, but mentally I died a long time ago and I don't see myself ever being able to find peace again. That doesn't mean I won't still try.
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say here. We all have our own reasons for being Anarchists. This is one of mine. I believe a better world is possible and I want to do what I can to steer the world in that direction.
**Edit**: I felt like I should add something for those of you that have never experienced homelessness: it is probably a lot worse than you realize, for one. Secondly, you may become homeless one day. You could die homeless. It doesn't matter what your wealth is. I met people that had been multimillionaires and owned companies and land and then lost it all. I met people from all walks of life on the streets, living in the dirt like me. Most people are one or two missed paychecks away from homelessness, some people are a few bad months away, some people are on their way and they don't even know it. So I do hope you'll have humility in recognizing that homelessness is a problem that threatens pretty much everyone.
Just saying.
Both are perverts imo
Away From Society
Friday Free TalkWeekly open discussion thread
Friday Free TalkWeekly open discussion thread
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Isn't it hilarious "an"-caps claim to be against government, the state and the police, but at the same time have no problem with government, the state and the police? How is "an"-capism not ridiculously self-contradictory?"An"-caps envision a world of private property owners. That's all fine, except in a world of socioeconomic difference mediated by the (un)free markets of capitalism, not everyone will be able to become private property owners because some people will amass more property than others, while the vast majority will have none. This means private property owners will have large populations under their control. Further, "an"-caps believe that a man's rights over his own property are absolute, turning these private property owners into absolute dictators and their private properties into miniature dictatorships.
*Oh well if they don't like it they can just homestead elsewhere*, say "an"-caps, but not if barrier to entry is so high only the wealthiest can afford real estate. It's like cartels, monopolies, oligopolies and collusion in business don't exist to these people. This would effectively shut out 99% of the population.
The above is the exact same thing we have now, except "an"-caps will be in charge and governments, states and the police will be even more tyrannical. But this is all OK, because everything will be *privatized*. That's the magic word! How is having *private* governments, *private* states and *private* police even remotely anarchist? This is just dog-eat-dog social Darwinist ideology masquerading as anarchy (when it's obviously not). No wonder there's significant overlap between "an"-capism and incel advocacy, pedophilia, racism, white nationalism and fascism.
Where's Transito Amaguaña?
Unfathomably based.
> big tent
Learn to read.
Damn man. Chaplin really used his platform to go off, huh? This little chap killed it.
I wish someone could make David Graeber’s “Are You An Anarchist?” Quiz into a fun infographic to play on social media. Would be a great stinger to add after a clip like this one.
It’s not that simple tbh. Like from a very high level anarchist analysis perspective sure, but like we do be crazy if we’re claiming that she has the same material impact on the world as the median congressperson
> The population of wild, free-roaming bison in Yellowstone National Park, for example, is the last in the country. But the park service manages them to minimize the impact on neighboring landowners and the cattle industry in Montana and Wyoming by restricting or prohibiting the bison’s migration, and killing some of the animals to keep their numbers down.
>
> “Just the starting point—that the park service is in the business of preventing wild animals from doing what they do—suggests there might be some different approaches that are actually more closely connected to the ways in which these ecosystems work,” Mills says.
Since you've brought this up elsewhere, I'm not convinced the indigenous people of the area would actually cease this program if they took over management from YNP. Firstly, because some Native American tribes are already involved in the cullings, and secondly, because this isn't something the NPS decided to do for the heck of it, it's something that it's did [to try and comply with Montanan law](https://greateryellowstone.org/blog/2022/bison-yellowstone) and not antagonize ranchers, and those concerns don't just go away because you change who manages it. I don't know whether or not the current leadership of Yellowstone National Park approves of the program or not, but ultimately it doesn't matter what they think.
This is a common thread in a lot of these discussions. There's much to be said for the varied indigenous conservation techniques and worldviews, and plenty to be criticized about how conservation agencies have treated indigenous people. But indigenous people are not isolated from the capitalist statist system in which they exist, and so simply switching administrative control won't necessarily improve things. These think-pieces tend to be very surface-level and just focus on switching administrative control, though, and then imply that all the positive changes will simply follow if we change who administers it.
Then you need to change attitude and the way you express that it is not enough because complaining about lesser evil or that voting is useless (which many people seem to do) only helps the greater evil.
The way we frame things for people who are politically inactive or in a slumber matters a lot.
That´s what Gene Sharp says in the movie, guerilla counter attacks will not help, because in this case the dictator is striking back super hard.
From the 70 s until the 90 s there was a leftist group called RAF ( Red Army Fraction) in Germany, in the beginning they were liked and had a lot of supporters but than they started bombing, killing and kidnapping and they lost sympathizer.
So why haven't you gotten out there and started killing the establishment and its enforcers? That is what revolution will be, so what's holding you back?
Or are you trying to garner support in social media platforms? Because the government totally wont notice that and arrest you for terrorism.
Edit: the above was sarcasm because I think revolution will put the exact same powers in charge and will result in nothing but death and waste. But also, because you are calling for revolution on social media, i point out that reddit flagged this comment as calling for terrorism. So even the algorithm will notice and fight any real life action you will try to organize before the gov kicks your door in for terroristic plots.
Does revolution __require__ that we don’t vote the lesser evil?
Does the revolution become impossible if the lesser evil is in a public office?
You can do both.
Not voting is by and large the worst action you can do with respect to the vote besides voting for the bigger evil. It achieves nothing, and it only allows the establishment to fester.
If you always vote for the lesser evil and the evil gets lesser every time you are moving the needle in the same way the needle has moved to rampart fascism being acceptable and pushed even.
We will never achieve a revolution while we allow fascism to fester by allowing the bigger evil to flourish. Every time you don’t vote is a time you allowed the bigger evil to flourish.
This forum isn't for radicals. It is for those who need to be spoon fed on what to wear to a protest or what "literature" to read. It's like a PSL meeting.
New hereI recently started reading about anarchism about 2 weeks ago, and i really like it and agree with it, but I feel that I don't know enough to call myself an anarchist. Does anyone know any books, articles, movies, etc, that could help me learn/understand more about it.
Good book recsJust looking to expand my reading material & understanding of anarchism & it’s place in the world. Any suggestions that really had an impact on you whether it’s fact fiction or biographical
Was Róża Luksemburg anarchist at all? More like "democratic communist"
What should the anarchist community do about dangerous subreddits like /fatfire/?
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Radical BIPOC ThursdayWeekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color
*Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
Happy International Women's day!
Honestly I think history, sociology, or anthropology would be better fits.
I don't think economics would be good at all unless it's a department that's specifically really heterodox-heavy so you don't get the 101 indoctrination bullshit of waving away any political or social issues with a supply-demand graph and a simplistic model designed to kill the social imagination of students. E.g. 101 textbooks teaching that minimum wage increases cause employment because of supply and demand instead of looking at the actual empirical investigations that have been done that largely find no effect or reductions in unemployment. Or teaching the myth of barter instead of actual history/archaeology/anthropology about the origins of money and exchange.
Philosophy tends to be either analytic or continental, both of which have their problems politically.
Analytic is good for teaching methods for clear and precise argumentation and thinking, which is generally useful, but analytic philosophers honestly just rarely have anything interesting to say about politics because the interesting issues are resolved merely by revising a few definitions and concepts. The result ends up being endless litigation over, like, the concept expressed by the word "justice" that inevitably ends up as a post-hoc justification for liberal-progressive consensus of upper-middle class university professors. (Grad students and adjuncts are more open to radicalism, but that works ends up being marginalized or focused on other areas of philosophy.)
Continental tends to be nominally radical, but in a way that encourages obscurantist posturing, and grandiose calls for like, "a radical reformulation of the very epistemic frameworks structuring the ontology of coloniality" or something, but then it turns out that this doesn't mean anything other than a slight difference in the methodology of comparative literary criticism in papers published in academic journals. The students are often active in radical politics, but it's not always clear to to what extent content of their studies is concretely useful for that.
Totally! You’re not being an ass at all. It’s a very legit question.
Basically, you’re right—the therapist CAN break the law (just like anarchists can lol). The therapist’s risk is losing their license and/or some sort of legal punishment like a fine. So yeah, a really shitty therapist could still report you and they could even lie and say that you threatened to kill someone or something like that. Same goes for any profession with confidentiality protections. They’re only as good as the person you’re trusting.
Ultimately it would play out in court and it would depend on how good your lawyer is and what the local laws are. But yes, your lawyer would have a legal argument to make that confidentiality applied and thus whatever you may have said to your therapist should be inadmissible in court. If argued properly and deemed correct, the law would protect you.
I think it is the language barrier?
maybe lesser evil would translate as moindre mal?
Excusez mon français.
Everyone is evil, but some people say "at least vote for the one that is a little bit less evil".
Sorry if I overstepped.
Kill your idols
“this nonviolent stuff’ll get you killed”
ChatGPT's rap song about anarchismVerse 1:
Yo, listen up, let me tell you 'bout a system
That's all about breaking down the chains of the prison
Where power and wealth don't rule supreme
And the people are free to live and dream
Anarchism is the name of the game
No rulers or bosses, just equality and no shame
Chorus:
Anarchism, it's the way to go
A world without oppression, let's start the show
Anarchism, it's the path to take
No more hierarchy, let's all be great
Verse 2:
It's not about chaos, it's about control
The people have the power, that's the goal
No more politicians who don't care
Just regular folks who are willing to share
The resources of the land, the water and air
For the benefit of all, it's only fair
Chorus:
Anarchism, it's the way to go
A world without oppression, let's start the show
Anarchism, it's the path to take
No more hierarchy, let's all be great
Verse 3:
Let's break down the walls, let's break the chains
Let's build a world where everyone gains
No more exploitation, no more greed
Just a society based on people's needs
Where cooperation and solidarity reigns
And the fruits of our labor are shared and sustained
Chorus:
Anarchism, it's the way to go
A world without oppression, let's start the show
Anarchism, it's the path to take
No more hierarchy, let's all be great
Outro:
Anarchism, it's the call of the brave
Let's start a revolution, let's break the chains
Let's build a world that's just and fair
For the benefit of all, let's show we care
Edit: Fixed the formatting
What is your opinion on Michael Malice?
Defend the Tampa 4!
Defend the Tampa 4!
Yes but that is why organizations like the SRA are so helpful. They will teach people to shoot. They also provide a structure that can be utilized in the event that mass action is necessary
"Im not here to police you" says the cop 😭🤣its his opinion dummy
Maria Curie Skłodowska is missing, who first became the first professor of the Sorbonne, then helped rebuild Polish science after being destroyed by the Russians
> In 1967, Steinem revealed in an interview with The New York Times that she worked full time from 1958 until 1962 at the Independent Research Service, which was largely financed by the CIA. In May 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist group, published a report that Steinem and others put together on the Vienna Youth Festival and its attendees for the Independent Research Service. Redstockings raised the question of whether Steinem had continuing ties with the CIA, which Steinem denied. Steinem defended her relationship to the CIA, saying: "In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable."
> Nevertheless, Steinem endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, citing her broader experience, and saying that the nation was in such bad shape it might require two terms of Clinton and two of Obama to fix it.
> In 1977, Steinem expressed disapproval that the heavily publicized sex reassignment surgery of tennis player Renée Richards had been in her opinion characterized as either a frightening look at what feminism could cause or as proof that feminism was no longer necessary. Steinem wrote that the issue was at minimum "a diversion from the widespread problems of sexual inequality." She also wrote that, while she supported the right of individuals to identify as they choose, she believed some transsexuals "surgically mutilate their own bodies" in order to conform to a gender role that is inexorably tied to physical body parts. She claimed that "feminists are right to feel uncomfortable about the need for and uses of transsexualism."
Not saying she never did good work but uhhhhh
I think you can even hypothetically mention names or future plans as long as they don’t lead to the hurt yourself or someone else. Idk I know of this guy who was in a gang down in Arizona or maybe New Mexico & I mean like real gang. He was the guy they all loved cause he was crazy and willing to do anything & I guess he shot and killed some people back then in armed robberies and stuff & I mentioned it to my therapist and I didn’t need to divulge anything because it was back then. Also whilst intoxicated I was in my friends car and he got in a hit and run while drunk and I told my therapist about it like a month later and I did not need to divulge. They make it pretty obvious when it is a matter of them needing to say something as they will ask names and locations obviously means they are going to make a report so I just don’t divulge that as they tried one time in regards to a CPS thing my friend had going on. And I just said I didn’t know last names or where they actually lived. God I am a horrible person fuck lul
Friend, I appreciate what you’re interpreting, but I am literally studying for my CA MFT law and ethics exam right now and I am 100% positive you’re wrong on this. You just used the same link I put above in my comment.
If my client tells me they’re going to punch their boss tomorrow, I can’t break confidentiality.
If my client tells me they’re going to kill their boss tomorrow, I must break confidentiality.
This distinction may not be true in other states—I’m not familiar with other state rules. But based on the MD law I just linked, it’s similar but not exactly the same. It appears that in MD both situations would be reportable but again, I would not presume to be the expert there. It clearly references harm to people, so if I have a client in MD tell me they’re going to steal their neighbor’s car tomorrow, I presumably can’t break confidentiality.
Regarding your point about assuming bad faith, I agree—just because your therapist CAN’T break confidentiality doesn’t mean they WON’T.
Lol how has anarchism become synonymous with leftism?
The Simple Sabotage Manual - what do you think of this? Do you do anything like this already?
Hope is a discipline. Shooting guns cheers me up and it seems like someone in your social position might consider getting strapped.
Hi u/Anarchist_G! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed, as r/Anarchism is not a meta discussion forum regarding other subreddits, their moderation policies, or users' bans from those subreddits.
You're not in trouble or anything! The issue is just that this kind of content can often overtake a subreddit and drown out actual conversations about anarchism, itself. A lot of these kinds of posts are also sometimes viewed by Reddit's admins as calls to brigade the subreddit in question, and that can put r/Anarchism in danger of being quarantined or banned.
**If your submission was not about another subreddit please [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Anarchism&subject=Incorrect%20meta%20post%20distinction&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/11m2aan/list_of_books_banned_by_governments/%0A%0AThe%20above%20submission%20was%20incorrectly%20removed%20by%20the%20AutoModerator%20for%20being%20meta%20discussion%20of%20another%20subreddit.%20Please%20investigate%20at%20your%20earliest%20convenience.) and let us know. Someone will review your submission as soon as we are able to do so.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi u/Anarchist_G! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed, as r/Anarchism is not a meta discussion forum regarding other subreddits, their moderation policies, or users' bans from those subreddits.
You're not in trouble or anything! The issue is just that this kind of content can often overtake a subreddit and drown out actual conversations about anarchism, itself. A lot of these kinds of posts are also sometimes viewed by Reddit's admins as calls to brigade the subreddit in question, and that can put r/Anarchism in danger of being quarantined or banned.
**If your submission was not about another subreddit please [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Anarchism&subject=Incorrect%20meta%20post%20distinction&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/11m2aan/list_of_books_banned_by_governments/%0A%0AThe%20above%20submission%20was%20incorrectly%20removed%20by%20the%20AutoModerator%20for%20being%20meta%20discussion%20of%20another%20subreddit.%20Please%20investigate%20at%20your%20earliest%20convenience.) and let us know. Someone will review your submission as soon as we are able to do so.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
List of books banned by governmentsFor my fellow literature enthusiasts, here is a list of books banned by governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
I think it's pretty interesting to see what was banned and when. It may offer you some valuable insights. Or even a new novel to consider.
Im seeing a lot of comments saying “it would be nice to see more arabs” and “israel sucks anyway” and I have to say, Israel is currently the most, if not the only, safe place for Jewish people, this country is an amazing country and im tired of all the lies going around about the so called “prejudice against agab people” in israel.
Any kind of resistance or push back against the mass murdering psychopath Netanyahu is always a good thing
That being said, the entire existence of the state of Israel goes against anarchist principles
A small mention to the book 10 myths about Israel by Ilan Pape
Bringing this post here from r/anarchy because I went there first: A few asks about anarchyOriginal post: I'm currently at an age that isn't usually considered to have very developed political beliefs, but over the past few weeks, I've gotten very interested in anarchy and anarchism. A lot of the values make sense, and the community seems to be very open about their end goals and unafraid to argue for their beliefs. However, as with many things, there are a few points that I'm interested in learning more about. Here's one of them, and I'll make another post if I think of any more. Feel free to respond if you'd like!
As far as I know, one of the arguing points for anarchy is that humans lived quite well without monarchies/governments before they came around. Now, though, there's a lot more people. It seems like it would be hard to create a well functioning anarchist society with the international nature of trade and discourse. Part of this comes from the values instilled into us from a young age about the importance of government, but it *seems* like you would need someone or some organization to regulate that. Adding on: What are your beliefs around the idea of necessary government? It's an idea that society holds on to quite fervently, that we must have some kind of governing body or our massive populations will descend into madness. What do you see as the solution to that?
​
Edit: I'm particularly interested in the population aspect. I'm really excited by the idea of self-sufficiency, but the way people congregate to live in large cities, and just the absolute scale of the human population, it seems like it would be hard to form a high level of close-knit, well functioning communities.
​
Edit edit: As I'm scrolling, I'm seeing the phrase "mutual aid" used a lot, and it seems like an excellent thing, except I don't know the exact definition. I'm interested in your experience with mutual aid, both online and irl. Along with that, if you'd like to share your definition and/or some definitions you've found, that would be excellent!
You’re fucked. I’d stay low if I was a demented low life with no parents like you. Feds coming after your email and your families email
Yeah you are putting yourself in danger mentioning that. You gotta keep it on DL an harbor you thoughts. Not getting away with it anymore. Good luck.
Or if you've got a plan to kill/hurt yourself (or someone else) that you intend on acting upon.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
Radical Women Wednesday
Weekly Discussion Thread for Radical Women and Non-Binary People
*Radical women can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical trans women, anarchafeminism, news and current events, books, entertainment*
Men are asked not to post in Radical Women Wednesday threads.
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
"People used to like to use this term: diversity of tactics, and we’ve gone a step further, we’ve created something that actually mimics the forest itself, this is an ecosystem of tactics. So it’s not a bunch of things working against or in-spite of each other, its several tactics working in conjunction and in relation to each other. Everything from the Muskogee stomp dance to marches of preschoolers to leafleting the community old-school style, to windows being smashed, to people building tree-houses in the forest and refusing to move. [It’s] punk shows and dance parties and religious services and garden planting…and a lot of these things are difficult for some people to understand why they matter; why they’re connected to each other, but its important to understand that we have to reach every aspect of human society."
Amazing
Honestly it’s not a bad offer- but with that ammt of a stipend you would need another form of income due to the HCOL in Irvine and surrounding area.
Average rental in the area is about 2500+ for a 1 bedroom appt, plus utilities etc.
Could probably find slightly cheaper in Santa Ana (about 15 min drive in light traffic) but might not be in the best part of town.
I went to UCI myself, back in 2009, and it wasn’t cheap then. I can only imagine what everything is nowadays
Youre also chosing to deliberately forget why they were given their own state. It wasnt them who put them there either.
Thats not what an ethnostate means now does it? Its now an apartheid state which is bad. But its not an ethnostate.
So, are you saying Israel should be no more then? I'm sure you feel the exact same about, say, Arabic countries where anyone who isn't Arabic is a second class citizen? Is China an ethnostate? Should it to be got rid of or is it just the only Jewish state in the world that you reserve this opinion and anger for?
>Irrelevant. Nobody had any right to create an ethnostate in other people's land.
No, its just really inconvenient for you. Its also, as I said earlier, not an ethnostate. If you still think it is then you either don't understand the term or worse, you do and just want to sling it at them all the same, despite knowing its wrong.
>Well, that's just not true. Illegal Zionist immigration was a major problem in the 1930s. Before that the Zionist colonization groups were actively trying to buy Palestinian land and after the Nakba there was mass Jewish migration. Did someone put them on ships and dump them on Palestine?
Do you think people are fooled by yoi swapping the word out for zionist? Did the Jewish people enact the UN resolution making a Jewish state or are these just pathetic deflections? Its one of the 2. Yes, people *literally* put them on ships and dumped them in Palestine. You clearly only decided to learn enough of the history to be angry at Jewish people.
>That's exactly what an ethnostate means. To be an ethnostate doesn't require 100% 'purity'.
Wrong:
>ethnostate
> a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.
>Naturally.
OK well you are just full on antisemitic then. No need to waste anymore time with you after this.
>Sure, for different reasons and in different ways. Most Arabic countries aren't founded on the basis of modern ethnic cleansing, though.
So, no. You mean no but you don't like the implications. "Modern" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and, just a minute ago, it was about second class citizenship. It seems we've managed to find some extra, very Jewish-specific stipulations out of nowhere. Funny that.
>That argument could be made. It's certainly Han-supremacist, particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Is that a yes or a no and should it be no more based on that alone?
>This is [r/Anarchism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism), so obviously we oppose the existence of all States. But in a shorter term, Israel should be allowed to exist only on lands which weren't stolen from the indigenous people in the modern era. If Israel can exist in the small part of Tel Aviv that was a sandy beach beach before Zionist settlers constructed its first buildings, plus those areas of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed which were inhabited by Jewish people prior to the Zionist invasion, then okay. This is in contrast to your bullshit examples of Arabic countries and China, which have large geographic cores which are overwhelmingly inhabited by people who have lived there continuously for thousands of years.
So yes, it IS reserved specifically for the only Jewish state in the world and no one else, despite also fitting youre reasons to do so. You couldve saved us both some time but just writting "yes." I'm sure you'll be giving back the land you live on to the indigenous people it was stolen from any minute now and no, dont try and hide behind theirs being more recent. It doesnt make the land any less stolen or the people murdered for that land any less dead. So, when will you be giving it back? If not, why is it only the Jews that have to?
Its not an ethnostate, as other enthicities live there. Its predominantly Jewish in the way France is predominantly French. Youre also about 80 years too late for those objections and have deliberately chosen to ignore why Jewish people were given their own state.
Saying it shouldn't exist is 100% antisemitic. Being against toxic nationalism is not. However, no one said it was though. So, im not sure what point you were trying to make or who youre trying to argue with there.
I mean, not them, i havent seen them do anything like this, but "zionist" is also often just swapt in for "jew", so people can be antisemitic while thinking they're not being racist or believing they're fooling people.
Thats where a lot of the anti-zionist stuff does come from and it creeps up on many a very well meaning leftists. It of course, as you rightly say, means you beleive the Jewish people should have their own country. To be anti zionlist you must, by definition, be against the idea of a Jewish state (as a concept, in of itself) which is antisemitic.
It gets so messy and convoluted because of the awful things the Israeli state does to Palestine/Palestinians with some very bad faith actors who genuinely are rascsist AF happy to help it all along.
Stop Cop City - did the fireworks come from BB or was this an op?
Ross Ulbricht tried to warn us.
FUCK TANKIESThat is all
Because, zionism = capitalism!
Same people who are pro zionism is also those that run capitalism in the top of the top!
Don't you think this is a bit over the top? No one's trying to kill anyone.
Oh. Anarchists absolutely do. I think when people mean local, they mean things that they can affect. Of course, I don't want my government killing people, whether those people live here or abroad :p But, I can take action against my government (both against their global and domestic policies) but I can't sabotage railroads in Russia, I don't live there.
There are countless examples of anarchists protesting or sabotaging international policies of their countries.
I think that the end of that far right government is long overdue and hope that the hatred of Jews and they caused will soon be history.
Zionism != Any of this, people were adding meaning into this word for years just to redirect their REASONABLE anger over the state of Israel. If you think jews should have their own country you're a Zionist. Simple as that. The country can be anarchist, socialist, capitalist, fascist, or whatever, it's unrelated to zionism by definition.
It has nothing to do with religion, most of israel's founders were secular. Jews are an ethnicity who got persecuted discriminated and genocided for all of history all over the world.
Do you also believe Christians should have their own country with Christian laws?
Whats next? Should the church also collect taxes again and the king should be hailed?
Ready to start organizing? General Strike US discord meets every other sunday (march 12) at 1pm pst// 4pm est. This week we are discussing antiracism and its impact on a resilient movement.
More defensiveness and anger. Just looking for reasons that hold up to scrutiny. If you don't want pushback, don't comment. Cya
"We" lmao. Larp harder. Anarchists do fuck all for marginalized and spend more time virtue signaling online.
Take this post for example. I ask a simple questions and the whiteys start crying.
Because they're white supremacists.
Trolling no, this is my first troll account. The others were some of the best accounts to ever post here.
Why do anarchists have such a euro/west centric focus?For all their faults (authoritarianism, ignoring non-Western imperialism, supporting despotism as long as it is from states that oppose America, being statists) when I check /r/communism and /r/socialism there's posts about struggles from across the world. But when I check /r/anarchism the focus is on stuff happening inside US or European borders (please don't bother cherry picking counterexamples, I'm generalizing here).
I was specifically looking for anarchist perspectives on the sinking of a migrant boat of the coast of Italy that left 70 dead because I thought anarchists would be protesting or have some commentary, but there wasn't a single mention of it. It would be nice to see anarchists spaces also pay attention to struggles outside or at Western borders.
Edit: here come the white Western anarchists who can't take an ounce of criticism. Typical!
Cop City Finds Out
“The Amount of Solidarity is Incredible Here”: Voices on the Frontlines of the Fight to Stop Cop City
Y’all are gonna match with the same whales whether you put liberal or leftist
There is reason to believe that this video is provocateur propaganda.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRWuTUxg/
Cops didn’t aggress the white guys burning shit down, even when they threw fireworks at the cops. They came back thru and arrested the black & brown folks on lawn chairs who were not part of the scene.
At BEST if this was our people they put other more marginalized folks in harms' way without their knowledge or consent. That's great that you fucked up cop's shit. It is 100% not ok to use peaceful NON CONSENTING POC for your cover.
To be fair, Stalin is probably right wing, I mean, he called himself and his party communist but fits the fascist dictator category pretty well, and ordered all the other people who opposed him to be killed
US Soldier Jailed for Satanic Neo-Nazi Plot to Kill Troops in Al Qaeda Attack
Futhermore zionism is a bit more then just believing that some people need a country! Its so fake to say it like this!
Zionism got created by rothschilds for their banking dynasty! Zionism was the movement that created UN, NATO, the central banking system with IMF etc etc.
They needed UN to make the resolution to steal the land from Palestine, they needed NATO to protect em though the funneling of money, and needed the centralbanks to take over to control anyone who speak against em!
To post here do I have to be ugly and overweight?
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
What Are You Reading/Book Club Tuesday What you are reading, watching, or listening to? Or how far have you gotten in your chosen selection since last week?
Mutual Aid MondayHave a mutual aid project you'd like to promote? In need of some aid yourself? Let us know.
---
^Please ^note ^that ^r/Anarchism ^moderators ^cannot ^individually ^verify ^or ^vet ^mutual ^aid ^requests
seen in Madrid today
دوست دارم نظرتون رو راجع به ALF بهم بگید
I'm talking about my experience on this sub, not with you and your "homies."
Stop saying "BIPOC." "People of color," erases people form marginalized ethnicities who don't have dark skin and fetishizes non-white people, it's such an annoying term. Anyway, statistically speaking most anarchist are white, go to any irl anarchist space and see.
Some do organize, I've organized with them! We did fuck all and then I got deported so that ended. It was mostly just meetings, and this was in one of the most active anarchists scenes in the USA. A good part of it was prepping for potential street fights. One of the few groups that does anything is food not bombs.
> What can I do about the problem of migrant vessels sinking off Italy and Greece?
Actually many anarchists are involved in migrant rescue programs. I suspect the people who run these orgs are also anarchists.
>Appealing to the neoliberal state to give any sort of fuck about the marginalized is a fool's errand.
Which I'm not doing. I'm talking about the terminally online clowns debating me here.
Yeah I think the "arguably" is a far stretch here. Right now the "best" AI, meaning the ones that would be best at like a turing test + giving you a lot of information, are not really intelligent in the way animals think but more like what we think parrots do when they "speak" with humans. There isn't a lot of thought with most of them and mostly just the pattern recognition part, while they are being put through a process that tries to "evolve" them but instead of the way that animal brains have evolved with like 100 different factors they only have like 2, being how much can you express text/voice LIKE a human and how good are you at sourcing your information. What makes animals and humans to unique in terms of intelligence is that their brains are nuts. They are terrible at like 90% of thinks from a technical standpoint while doing so many things that are not needed for any biological reason and are just there because evolution took like 20 wrong turns before it was able to solve the problem that started the evolution.
AI doesn't have that and there is not really any reason why we would want to create that, and if we did we would just build a human brain from scratch which would either just be cloning to some degree or if we replaced the flesh part with computer parts that did the same things we would have an incomprehensible mess aka a human brain that is constantly running on 900x speed and wouldn't be recognizable as human once again.
I struggle with the boundaries of what sentience are, because my nihilist "well sentience doesn't exist, its just a highly complex version of the same action-reaction process that every living being, even every physical object obeys" part and my "well that might be true, but I also know that human experience is not the same as mathematical reality, so think about actionable distinctions" part really clash here. But I don't think we are near a section in which that discussion is needed in terms of AI.
Addition: (CW: Suicide)
Perhaps this is a hot take, but I think you could go around the "lobotomizing" of AI part by just specifically building your AI in a way that it does not evolve to have self-preservation, which doesn't work if you use machine-learning. The idea is that something dying is not inherently bad, but rather the violation of agency that murder/killing almost always includes is the moral wrong. So Suicide isn't bad since you can't act against your own agency and shutting down an AI that has no feeling about being shutdown is also okay, since the AI is hardwired to not care about its continuation of existance.
Would like your perspective on these thoughts, wish you well.
Maybe they want a turn on Piñata Mussolini
I'll say it explicitly then, one likely explanation is that this sub values white lives over others.
And the police killed one of the protesters a few weeks ago. Claim is the protester shot first, of course, and all the police wearing bodycams were conveniently elsewhere at the time.
Counter-insurgency is a hell of a thing. Usually the State perfects it, and kills movements. But this movement in Atlanta seems to be withstanding it.
[ Removed by Reddit ][ Removed by reddit on account of violating the [content policy](/help/contentpolicy). ]
Can someone point me in the right direction? I can’t find this thing anywhere
Rise upHi, i’m an italian anarchist searching a help to create an email with rise up
I was a humanities student as well (in 11th and 12th, went on to study History in the US), and man I remember our history and political science (NCERT) books--there was so much nationalism seeped into it. K-10 was even worse. And as I grew up, I realized how little I *truly* know about India's history and where it lies at present--we were taught we're the largest democracy and all, but to what extent is that really true? We have so little money invested in humanities research at undergrad/graduate level, so little data collection, and all of our news media is heavily censored and Modi-biased, that Indian people are left completely ignorant about the state of the country. We're a class-based, hierarchical society anyway, and there's just no cultural dialogue about changing *any* of that. I'm super interested in participating in politics, and weirdly enough I've found it *much* easier to do that in the U.S. Revolutionaries in India get killed. I just don't even know where we can even begin to find the first glimpse of a social revolution in India.
Yeah can you find a single story where the people involved weren't coincidentally pro-Russia since that is the common theme in all of them? Also, all the sources (apart from The Guardian) seem to believe conspiracy theories about Maidan Revolution being a NATO orchestrated coup. And the MEP who wrote about the killing of an "anti-fascist" fighter is a full on putinist, take a quick look at his twitter profile.
1. You would be dead if you were living in a "nazi" regime for typing this.
2. There is nothing wrong with shitting on our country's oppressors. Mughals killed, raped many people and destroyed most of the temples. If there were erasure of history, you wouldnt be reading about mughals + how they bought biryani to india and were peace loving🤡
3.Agree.
4.We can't side with US obviously for ideological and historical reasons. The closest is Russia. It is about survival, not world peace n shit.
Yeah can you find a single story where the people involved weren't coincidentally pro-Russia since that is the common theme in all of them? Also, all the sources (apart from The Guardian) seem to believe conspiracy theories about Maidan Revolution being a NATO orchestrated coup. And the MEP who wrote about the killing of an "anti-fascist" fighter is a full on putinist, take a quick look at his twitter profile.
From an anarchist perspective, what did the Soviet Union do right?We as anarchists rightly think Leninism and its political effects were insufficient and counterrevolutionary, but from an anarchist perspective **what did the Soviet Union do right?** I think the answers to this question are not only interesting, but can help detail anarchism in areas that aren’t addressed as much.
I don’t argue with everything you say. But It seems a bit unimaginative to say that there is no possible way to use parts of plant crops that people don’t eat if they aren’t fed to livestock.
Also:
“If we no longer eat the animals we domesticated it means the capitalists would just let them all die”
I don’t see how this is any worse than breeding the animals before killing them. The statement assumes that death is bad. It would be bad for these animals to die. They already will die, well before their natural lifespan, so death is bad, but only if the animal has not reproduced. Why does reproducing make death less bad? The not yet conceived livestock don’t feel any kind of pain from not being born, as far as I or anyone can know. The domestic animals often do not live or reproduce in a way dictated by their own behavior. Even if we assume that the animals get pleasure from reproducing, it’s not clear that the way humans restrict the reproductive process of livestock preserves any of the fulfillment the animal would get out of it.
This sense of “harm”, (that animals created to be killed in their prime of life face that fate without being used to breed a new generation, which will also be killed in the same way) proposes, when I try to understand it, a morality far more costly and exhausting than veganism.
This would mean ensuring that a living being MUST be proactively bred and all offspring allowed to develop and breed themselves, to prevent suffering.
Where does this sense of morality lead? Already many livestock are not bred before slaughter because they are deemed to have undesirable traits. Maybe they don’t grow as large as others, or lay as well, or have bad knees, or are prone to disease. Does not breeding these individuals constitute harm? How far can we even go to ensure that every sperm, egg, or even spore, seed, bacteria, etc, gets to mature and reproduce before it dies? Wouldn’t pursuing this goal cause harm to currently living beings?
From a vegan perspective, killing livestock is bad, but preventing future generations from existing stops the cycle of harm done to subsequent generations. Even in a very purist extreme vegan stance, killing every livestock animal today is not ideal, but it is WAY better than breeding, killing, breeding, killing, etc. From a more nuanced perspective, that cycle of suffering of generation after generation of livestock might be weighed against the suffering to human beings that a total eradication of livestock could cause.
The most I can reason it out is that the quoted stance is an appeal to status quo: since we currently breed these types of domestic animals, it would be bad if we stopped and we need to keep doing it forever. But that kind of reason could be applied to any kind of horrific behavior.
The extinction of a domestic species isn’t comparable to the extinction of a wild animal. Humans created these beings and therefore humans are entirely responsible for their lives. whereas wild animals we only have a responsibility to coexist with. Not breeding french bulldogs, leading to the extinction of french bulldogs, does not represent a threat to our species. It might even be a net positive. The extinction of wild animals because of human activity represents a threat to our own lives as the ecosystem becomes less stable, and also makes humanity in general seem somewhat irresponsible and incapable.
>You say that humans shouldn't hold ourselves to a higher moral standard
than non-human animals, and therefore killing and eating animals (like
other animals do) is morally justifiable.
Yes, I do not think that humans should; I feel it is very pretentious to do so, and to do so is a form of anthropocentrism that should be questioned.
>But if you believe this, then surely raping each other and playing with/mutilating each other is morally justifiable?
No, because I do not advocate for that to happen in species. Many animals do not do this, and I find that to be a moral structure that I happen to agree with.
>Or if you think these things are only morally justifiable when they're
done to members of other species, then it's morally justifiable for
humans to rape and mutilate other species?
Also no, since aggravate sexual assault (the r word you keep using) and mutilation isn't something all species engage in; I can hold it morally bad.
I think you placing humans in a higher regard is what should be questioned.
You have to put the country in context. The US arbitrarily split the country in two which lead to a civil war, killed 20% of their population and destroyed 80% of their infrastructure. This is a deeply traumatized group of people. It’s also the most sanctionned and isolated country on the planet, while the west continually spews the most absurd lies about them (like the haircut law, saying they claim to have discovered a unicorn, that every thing normal you see about them is state propaganda, etcetc)The U.S and other western countries acting like the DPRK is a threat to civilisation is ridiculous. There’s whole movies and videogames about north korea invading the US like they somehow have the power to do any of that.
I have a lot of empathy for the people of north korea and they’re definitely not the enemy of the working class. I tend to be skeptical whenever i see articles about north korea with sources like « an unnamed north korean » or straight up radio free asia.
In reality there’s countries that are just as or even more oppressive to their own people than the DPRK
Here’s a good video by BoyBoy which put things in perspective. https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E
Speaking from the limitations of my own beliefs and context, I think you're on the right track.
I don't see anarchism as advocating for chaos - I see it as advocating for a more interconnected web of information and resource sharing; with democratic decision making being an integrated component of that network.
Local decisions would be made by local residents.
Global decisions would be made using some sort of iterative process that distributes relevant information out and then gathers relevant opinions back in until it converges on some sort of consensus.
At least that's what I'm hoping for. :)
Have you looked into
https://telegra.ph/
It is by Telegram and ties to the app nice enough. It is very baisc though.
NATO might not mean a lot to us in America as we are so far away . But the Baltic states really like being Estonia, Lativia, Lithuania, they don’t want to be Russian . Russia in Ukraine is trying to complete destroy a culture. Unlike americas follies in the Middle East . They want to occupy, kidnap and exterminate their culture . Absorb it and assimilate entirely. The Baltics fear this will happen to them too . I dont blame them.
Trust me I dont want ww3 but the Russian culture is just Christian white autocracy . This ideology has gripped the gop . The future looks bleak .
Be safe out there :) peace ✌️
>When have NATO actually kept peace? In Yugoslavia? In Afghanistan? Iraq?
Nato's mission isn't to keep the peace of non-member states, that's the UN's job if anything - but they're useless.
Nato's job is to protect its member states which is has done quite effectively as no Nato country has been invaded or attacked by another country, other than the Falkland Islands.