:desolate:
I don't think I have to explain why this doesn't represent the majority of anarchists but if you say it does you're just being insufferable on purpose
You must log in or register to comment.
Marxist-Leninists get weirdo reactionaries who think homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence, anarchists get... whatever the fuck this is
So, I don't want to get called out for sectarianism or anything, but it's worth pointing out here that the feds have historically infiltrated leftist spaces and altered and confused the ideologies therein, promoting tendencies that are more alienating to average people and thereby rendering them ineffective. I'm not saying the authors are necessarily feds, but "child murder is OK actually and your thinking it isn't OK is a product of bourgeois capitalist values, so here's some ways to do it" is the probably the kind of thing you'd only write if you're in the mental grips of an ideology that is so alien to most of humanity as to be a cult, and the actions of the federal government might have something to do with why that ideology has been shaped into that form.
Idk calling the authors of 11 ways to kill a child feds doesn't seem to controversial to me
This person isn’t an anarchist, they’re an asshole grasping for labels to justify being a reactionary fuck who deserves a pit.
:brak: I’m Brak, and I endorse this comment!
There are people on this very site who see themselves as "antinatalists". If that's not an idea that's alien to most of humanity, I don't know what is.
Not wanting to have children doesn’t equal wanting to murder them.
:oh-shit:
very true, the intent is to prevent the suffering of mortality from ever having to happen in the first place, not to inflict more death. any already living thing deserves all the comforts in the world to help cope with inevitable death, even though this is often unpractical.
stop ridiculing people for thoroughly discussed and thought out philosophical positions that you have literally never read anything about challenge
seriously, you do this shit often enough that i recognize your name attached to ridiculing antinatalism. read a fucking book.
Okay. How is pointing out that antinatalism is very clearly an idea that is alien to most of humanity ridiculing anyone?
There are people on this very site who see themselves as “antinatalists”.
Come on, dude. This is not something you say about a position you respect in any way, shape, or form. It is ridicule.
You know that, of course. It's not like you don't know what you're doing. You're just arguing in bad faith now.
You're right, I don't respect it because it's a dogshit "philosophy" that only we priviliged westerners have the luxury to contemplate.
Yeah, you're right, the nature of consent and whether we should make massive decisions for other people who are incapable of offering input is just a dumb thing that only we privileged westerners get to think about.
I repeat, read a book. :PIGPOOPBALLS:
Do you think it's realistic that people would stop having children if they just read the right book?
Come on. This is not how things work, and you know it.
Do you think it’s realistic that people would stop having children if they just read the right book?
I'm trying to think of a fitting analogy for this sentence, but I'm really drawing a blank. It's just such a non-sequitur, brought about by your own proud and willful ignorance. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, you sound exactly like the average republican chud talking about socialism. Like, you heard the word "antinatalism" and then you invented in your own head what it means, independent of anything else, and then decided it was bad and wrong. And when other people go all :jesse-wtf: because you're operating on a definition absolutely no one else in the world uses, you just get even more condescending and double down on your ignorance.
The "privileged western" perspective is to have extremely strong opinions on things you literally know nothing about.
Read a book. :PIGPOOPBALLS: :PIGPOOPBALLS: :PIGPOOPBALLS:
How the fuck are you defining alien here? Antinatalism's not really that obscure, in a lot of ways it's been more prominent than a lot of the left for a while. I don't exactly subscribe to it, but it being less popular than the alternative does not mean it's alienating, very few people who aren't like ethnonationalists or whatever ideology that demands population growth are going to be outright appalled by antinatalism. It's about as "alienating" as fucking pineapple on pizza, it's not really comparable to saying infanticide is good actually regardless of context.
Antinatalism’s not really that obscure
Oh, it isn't? Go ask a farmer in Nigeria, a fisherman in Brazil, or a factory worker in Indonesia about the philosophical concept of antinatalism.
You think they'd have any idea what you're talking about? You think they would give a shit?
Yeah, I'm definitely the one "selling people short" here. Sure.
I'm not saying they would be unable to comprehend it. Quite the opposite. I'm saying they would clearly understand it and then correctly brush it off as the western nonsense it is.
Looks a lot like the vast majority of influential antinatalist "philosophers" are from either western europe or north america.
The vast majority of people on the planet wants children because that's just how people work. Even in the middle of famines and genocides people procreate. You are never going to change their minds by introducing them to some obscure doomlord anti-human "philosophy".
Antinatalism will never gain any real world relevance. And that's a good thing.
I'm honestly surprised that this shit is even allowed on a supposedly socialist website. How is the antinatalist argument"people should not have children" practically different from the eco-fascist argument "the population needs to be culled"?
Everyone who does not want to have children isn't acting in accordance with "human nature" isn't a take I would expect on a socialist website.
Something being alien and something being alienating are different things.
:jesse-wtf:
this reminds me of the Trotsky quote I saw yesterday where the only anarchist he ever met in prison was a complete sicko hanging out with the robbers and murderers and he did not want to talk about theory
I probably wouldn’t want to talk theory with Trotsky either.
I’d get drunk with him, but I’m pretty sure he’d immediately try to debate me if we talked politics and that’s boring.
You know, what the hell was wrong with Trotsky anyway? I don't really know the history behind him, but some of his writings seem reasonable but obviously he was fucking up somehow, otherwise he would not have gotten merc'd....by Mercader
My take: Extremely contrarian and insecure to the point he sabotaged a lot of relationships. Also very dogmatic and resulted in him attempting to undermine AES projects he split from.
Any Trotskyite buds on here, feel free to correct me. I’m sure this is a biased understanding!
Dude they were all nerds. But Trotsky was a badass, too. He ran the Red Army for a while. Don't sell him short, he was very competent.
Who read this and decided to publish it? Are editors an unjust hierarchy?
badum tsss
(but really, this is not normal anarchist literature lmao)
I'm checking out the other two things that pseudonym has written, and the self-referential stuff is... telling
this stuff isn't as high-energy but basically they have untreated depression
I’ve been a disaster enthusiast since I was young enough to read. That might sound strange and gruesome, but I somehow got my hands on a massive tome of despair called...
Anybody in the United States who has gone to see a therapist, psychiatrist, or other mental health professional has inevitably heard the positivity spiel. It goes like this: you go in for terrible depression, anxiety, or any number of conditions that are branded abnormal or deviant. Sometimes this is because of personal problems—grief over the death of a loved one for instance—or visual and auditory hallucinations, things that in the past been were the realm of shamans and witches, but are now efficiently exorcised through pharmaceuticals. However, more and more people are seeking help because of a deep existential crisis, which at its root is the state of the world.
(I should take this moment to interject that people should not interact with or otherwise affirm experienced hallucinations, as it does a severe disservice to a schizophrenic person who is trying to piece together what is really happening, and many have attested that it's a nightmare when the real world is interacting with their hallucinations.)
Most anarchists believe monsters are a product of society, rather than a uniquely human problem that no utopia, no matter how well prefigured, could ever banish. Anarchists shy away from being called terrorists when we should be accepting that label with open arms.
.
In another edition, they defend the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter.
I have to spoil this next bit for obvious reasons
brackets are mine:
Attacking innocents is incredibly taboo. Even to admit you understand, much less are sympathetic to, the actions of people like Frazier [a random person who killed an entire family in the 60's] or Lanza [the fucking Sandy Hook shooter], will cause you to be shunned. This is especially true when the taboo against the killing of children is transgressed. Everything must be palatable to the masses. Nothing is more sacred to the masses than children, who represent hope for the future of the human race. But that future will no doubt be as horrific in its banality as the world now.
There's more:
Lanza saw how we are shaped from birth to accept [the obscenity of materialism] and enjoy being caged. Like warriors before them they refused to see humans as more valuable than other life on earth and had no moral qualms about extinguishing lives no matter how young and innocent. In fact, they may be seen as having acted from a place of kindness, as suggested by Adam Lanza’s very personal killing of his mother before he left for the school. In his mind he wasn’t deranged; he had been pacing his cage his whole life, until he could pace no more. Then he pounced.
Anarchists shy away from being called terrorists when we should be accepting that label with open arms.
:fedposting: “everything normal people think is bad is good actually.”
yeah if someone is trying to convince you to call yourself a terrorist to fit in you probably should not do that, for the same reason if someone tries to teach you how to make a bomb you probably shouldn't take them up on that offer.
Also straight up lying by saying it was a common practice among indigenous sub Saharan Africans
What a weird essay. It's mostly a historical look at infanticide, and yea infanticide was liberating and important for childbearers in the history. It shows the importance of contraception we have today.
But somehow it really doesn't address any of the technological advancements from today. This section in particular shows it.
The reasons for this invisibility are simple: today there is a wide belief in the easy accessibility of all other options, which include everything from contraceptives to adoption. However, as so many can attest, not everyone even has access to condoms and other contraceptives, let alone abortion services.
I love how they mention adoption once and then in the counterargument ignore it. Adoption doesn't make a single other mention in this essay.
I'm sure actually putting your child up for adoption is difficult, probably similar to the access issues as abortion and contraception, maybe? But there's still abandonment. Is abandoning your child really worse than killing it? Most would say No, and the essay doesn't refute this, just quickly transitions into "So, you want to kill your child :"
Strange!
I'd honestly like to see how they'd try to square this with, like, youth liberation..
The person that wrote this desperately needs to touch grass, preferably away from any children's playgrounds.
I mean, what state of mind do you have to be in to write shit like this sincerely?
The pseudonym has made this anti-psychiatry comment:
Anybody in the United States who has gone to see a therapist, psychiatrist, or other mental health professional has inevitably heard the positivity spiel. It goes like this: you go in for terrible depression, anxiety, or any number of conditions that are branded abnormal or deviant. Sometimes this is because of personal problems—grief over the death of a loved one for instance—or visual and auditory hallucinations, things that in the past been were the realm of shamans and witches, but are now efficiently exorcised through pharmaceuticals. However, more and more people are seeking help because of a deep existential crisis, which at its root is the state of the world.
The last sentence is a real phenomenon, but... if this person is looking for affirmations of hallucinations or at one point sought treatment for "any number of conditions", they don't have the same experience as the regular worker with capitalism-induced anxiety or depression.
Fuck if only Deleuze could interview this person
This asshole is fetishizing the suffering of those with mental health disorders. Goddamn crunchy granola lifestylist.
